DEPARTMENT  OF 

PUBLIC  DISCUSSION  AND  DEBATE 

THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Bulletins  of  Information 

The  Extension  Division  publishes  the  following  special 
bulletins: 

University  Bulletins — 

4A.  The  University  Plan  of  Educational  Co-operation. 
4B.  University  Extension  Lectures. 

4C.  Correspondence  Study  Announcements. 

4D.  Department  of  Public  Speaking  Announcements. 
Departmental  Bulletins — 

1.  The  Initiative  and  Referendum. 

Any  of  the  above  will  be  furnished  upon  request. 


Y 


J 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/initiativerefere00univ_1 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 


Question:  Resolved  that  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  con- 
stitute a valuable  improvement  in  our  legislative  system. 

NOTE:  In  this  bulletin  four  articles  on  each  side  are  reproduced.  For 
lack  of  room  the  remainder  of  the  discussion  has  been  reduced  to  brief  state- 
ments or  “points”  on  both  sides.  These  are  purposely  not  arranged  in  logical 
order;  the  debater  must  do  that.  Debaters  are  urged  to  follow  carefully  the 
instructions  and  methods  suggested  in  our  bulletin  on  “Public  Discussion  and 
Debate.”  Let  the  aim  be  not  so  much  to  debate  this  question  as  to  learn  how 
to  debate. 

An  extensive  bibliography  has  been  prepared  and  will  be  furnished  free  to 
all  who  request  it. 

ABOUT  TRUSTING  THE  PEOPLE’S  JUDGMENT 

Editorial:  World’s  Work  21:  14437-14438.  June,  1911.  (Affirmative). 

It  is  generally  agreed  and  universally  known  that  the  people 
in  many  states  have  little  direct  voice  in  nominating  (.let  us 
say)  members  of  a legislature.  Except  when  there  is  a great 
public  scandal^  such  as  the  investigation  of  life-insurance  com- 
panies revealed  several  years  ago  in  New  York,  the  people  ha\e 
so  little  influence  in  shaping  legislation  that  in  most  states  they 
have  lost  interest  in  it.  Groups  of  men,  bosses,  and  political 
managers,  the  special  interests  and  the  privileged  classes  do 
what  they  will. 

And  this  is  the  chief  reason  why  the  power  and  influence 
of  state  governments  have  waned.  We  complain  of  the  ever- 
growing activity  of  the  Federal  Government,  when  every  ob- 
servant man  knows  that  one  of  the  chief  reasons  for  the  con- 
centration of  political  power  is  the  decline  of  local  political 
power.  The  state  governments  neglect  their  duties  and  more 
and  more  the  Federal  Government  assumes  them. 

Now,  one  of  the  best  results  of  the  initiative  and  referendum 
in  Oregon  has  been  to  put  new  life  into  the  state  government — 
into  all  local  government.  As  soon  as  the  people  find  them- 
selves able  (in  fact  obliged)  to  give  attention  to  their  local 
problems,  indifference  ceases.  They  take  an  eager  and  active 
interest  in  public  affairs.  Local  government  takes  on  a new 
kind  of  life.  The  necessity  of  keeping  informed  on  public  cmes- 
tions  prevents  the  political  stagnation  of  the  people. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  the  initiative  and  referendum  abolish 
representative  government.  They  have  shown  a strong  ten- 
dency to  abolish  the  government  that  represents  special  groups 


3 


) 


of  men — yes,  decidedly.  They  really  restore  the  government 
that  represents  the  people.  If  government  is  again  to  become 
really  representative,  some  such  machinery  is  necessary. 

These  criticisms  of  the  new  measures  of  popular  control  are 
interesting  because  of  the  sources  from  which  they  come.  They 
come  from  one  class  of  men  and  of  journals  which  are  sincere- 
ly unwilling  to  trust  the  people  at  the  polls,  and  they  come  from 
another  class  of  men  and  journals  which  for  selfish  reasons  arc 
unwilling  to  trust  the  judgment  of  the  people. 

The  judgment  of  the  people  is  not  infallible.  Popular  moods 
are  often  wrong.  But  after  all,  the  judgment  of  the  people  is 
our  court  of  last  appeal;  and  throughout  our  history  it  has  been 
found,  whenever  it  has  been  tried,  a thousand-fold  safer  than 
the  judgment  of  small  groups  of  men,  especially  of  selfishly  in- 
terested men.  The 'surprising  thing  in  the  use  that  has  thus  far 
been  made  in  the  Western  states  and  cities  of  the  referendum 
and  recall  is  the  conservative  temper  of  the  voters  that  this  use 
has  revealed.  They  have  time  and  again  defeated  radical  pro- 
posals. 

But,  good  or  bad,  this  new  machinery  for  expressing  the 
popular  will  is  making  its  way  into  popular  favor  with  such 
rapidity  as  to  make  sure  of  a very  general  trial  of  it.  Woodrow 
Wilson  said  in  a recent  speech  at  Norfolk,  Va.^  that  for  twenty 
years  he  lectured  to  his  students  at  Princeton  University  in 
criticism  of  the  initiative  and  referendum,  but  that,  after  having 
watched  the  workings  of  these  new  methods,  he  was  emphatic- 
ally in  favor  of  them  and  he  wished  to  beg  the  pardon  of  his 
old  students.  There  is  an  increasing  number  of  such  men — men 
who,  from  study  of  theory,  reject  this  innovation,  but  who, 
when  they  see  the  practical  results,  approve  of  it. 

The  question  raised  is  simply  this:  Shall  the  voice  of  the 
people  be  heard  directly  on  political  subjects  and  shall  the  judg- 
ment of  the  people  be  trusted?  Or,  is  it  better  to  go  on  with 
the  old  boss-system  which  thrives  because  it  can  be  worked 
in  spite  of  the  people?  The  people's  answer  is  not  doubtful. 
And  the  men  or  the  parties  that  stand  in  the  way  are  in  danger 
of  being  run  over  pretty  quickly. 

EXPERIMENTS  IN  GOVERNMENT. 

Elihu  Root.  The  North  American  Review,  198:  1-17.  July,  1913.  Abstracts 
(Negative). 

There  are  two  separate  processes  going  on  among  the  civi- 
lized nations  at  the  present  time.  One  is  an  assault  by  Social- 
asm  against  the  individualism  which  underlies  the  social  system 


4 


of  Western  civilization.  The  other  is  an  assault  c^ainst  exist- 
ing institutions  upon  the  ground  that  they  do  not  adequately  pro- 
tect and  develop  the  existing  social  order.  It  is  of  this  latter 
process  in  our  own  country  that  I wish  to  speak,  and  I assume 
an  agreement  that  the  right  of  individual  liberty  and  the  insepa- 
rable right  of  private  property  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  our 
modern  civilization  ought  to  be  maintained. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  laws  which  were  entirely  adequate 
under  the  conditions  of  a century  ago  to  secure  individual  and 
public  welfare  must  be  in  many  respects  inadequate  to  accom- 
plish the  same  results  under  all  these  new  conditions;  and  our 
people  are  now  engaged  in  the  difficult  but  imperative  duty  of 
adapting  their  laws  to  the  life  of  the  day.  The  changes  in  con- 
ditions have  come  very  rapidly  and  a good  deal  of  experiment 
will  be  necessary  to  find  out  just  what  government  can  do  and 
ought  to  do  to  meet  them. 

The  process  of  devising  and  trying  new  laws  to  meet  new 
conditions  naturally  leads  to  the  question  whether  we  need 
not  merely  to  make  new  laws,  but  also  to  modify  the  principles 
upon  which  our  government  is  based  and  the  institutions  of 
government  designed  for  the  application  of  those  principles  to 
the  affairs  of  life.  Upon  this  question  it  is  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance that  we  proceed  with  considerable  wisdom. 

When  proposals  are  made  to  change  these  institutions  there 
are  certain  general  considerations  which  should  be  observed. 

One  is  that  free  government  is  impossible  except  through 
prescribed  and  established  govermental  institutions,  which  work 
out  the  ends  of  government  through  many  separate  human 
agents,  each  doing  his  part  in  obedience  to  law  T^opular  will 
cannot  execute  itself  directly  except  through  a mob.  Popular 
will  cannot  get  itself  executed  through  an  irresponsible  execu- 
tive, for  that  is  simple  autocracy.  An  executive  limited  only 
by  the  direct  expression  of  popular  will  cannot  be  held  to  re- 
sponsibility against  his  will,  because  having  possession  of  alt 
the  powers  of  government,  he  can  prevent  any  true,  free,  and 
general  expression  adverse  to  himself,  and  unless  he  yields 
voluntarily  he  can  be  overturned  only  by  a revolution.  The 
familiar  Spanish-American  dictatorships  are  illustrations  of  this. 
A dictator  once  established  by  what  is  or  is  alleged  to  be  public 
choice  never  permits  any  expression  of  public  will  which  will 
displace  him,  and  he  goes  out  only  through  a new  revolution 
because  he  alone  controls  the  machinery  through  which  he  could 
be  displaced  peaceably.  A system  with  a plebiscite  at  one  end 


5 


and  Louis  Napoleon  at  the  other  could  not  give  France  free 
government^  and  it  was  only  after  the  humiliation  of  defeat  in 
a great  war  and  the  horrors  of  the  Commune  that  the  Frenclr 
people  were  able  to  establish  a government  which  would  really 
execute  their  will  through  carefully  devised  institutions  in  which 
they  gave  their  executive  very  little  power  indeed. 

We  should,  therefore,  reject  every  proposal  which  involves 
the  idea  that  the  people  can  rule  merely  by  voting,  or  merely  by 
voting  and  having  one  man  or  group  of  men  to  execute  their 
will. 

A second  consideration  is  that  in  estimating  the  value  of  any 
system  of  governmental  institutions  due  regard  must  be  had  to 
the  true  functions  of  government  and  to  the  limitations  imposed 
by  nature  upon  what  it  is  possible  for  government  to  accomp- 
lish. We  all  know,  of  course,  that  we  cannot  abolish  all  the 
evils  in  this  world  by  statute  or  by  the  enforcement  of  statutes, 
nor  can  we  prevent  the  inexorable  law  of  nature  which  decrees 
that  suffering  shall  follow  vice,  and  all  the  evil  passions  and 
folly  of  mankind.  Law  can  not  give  to  depravity  the  rewards 
of  virtue,  to  indolence  the  rewards  of  industry,  to  indifference 
the  rewards  of  ambition,  or  to  ignorance  the  rewards  of  learn- 
ing. The  utmost  that  government  can  do  is  measurably  to 
protect  men,  not  against  the  wrong  they  do  themselves,  but 
against  the  wrong  done  by  others,  and  to  promote  the  long, 
slow  process  of  educating  mind  and  character  to  a better 
knowledge  and  nobler  standards  of  life  and  conduct. 

In  the  nature  of  things  all  government  must  be  imperfect 
because  men  are  imperfect.  Every  system  has  its  shortcomings 
or  inconveniences;  and  these  are  seen  and  felt  as  they  exist  in 
the  system  under  which  we  live,  while  the  shortcomings  and  in- 
conveniences of  other  systems  are  forgotten  or  ignored. 

It  is  not  unusual  to  see  governmental  methods  reformed  and 
after  a time,  long  enough  to  forget  the  evils  that  cause  the 
change,  to  have  a new  movement  for  a reform  which  consists 
in  changing  back  to  substantially  the  same  old  methods,  that 
were  cast  out  by  the  first  reform. 

The  recognition  of  shortcomings  or  inconveniences  in  gov- 
ernment is  not  by  itself  sufficient  to  warrant  a change  of  sys- 
tem. There  should  be  also  an  effort  to  estimate  and  compare 
the  shortcomings  and  inconveniences  of  the  system  to  be  sub- 
stituted, for  although  they  may  be  different  they  will  certainly 
exist.  ***** 

The  initiative  and  referendum  are  attempts  to  cure  the  evils 

6 


wliich  have  developed  in  our  practice  of  representative  govern- 
ment by  means  of  a return  to  the  old,  unsuccessful,  and  dis- 
carded method  of  direct  legislation  and  by  rehabilitating  one  of 
the  most  impracticable  of  Rousseau’s  theories.  Every  candid 
student  of  our  government  affairs  must  agree  that  the  evils 
to  be  cured  have  been  real  and  that  the  motive  which  has 
prompted  the  proposal  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  com- 
mendable. I do  not  think  that  these  expedients  will  prove  wise 
or  succesful  ways  of  curing  these  evils  for  reasons  which  I will 
precently  indicate;  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  their 
trial  will  be  destructive  of  our  form  of  government. 

It  is  in  the  undertaking  to  have  the  ordinary  powers  of  leg- 
islation exercised  at  the  ballot  box  that  the  weakness  of  both 
initiative  and  referendum  is  shown.  They  are  based  upon  a 
radical  error  as  to  what  constitutes  the  true  difficulty  of  wise 
legislation.  The  difficulty  is  not  to  determine  what  ought  to  be 
accomplished,  but  to  determine  how  to  accomplish  it.  The  af- 
fairs with  which  statutes  have  to  deal  as  a rule  involve  the 
working  of  a great  number  and  variety  of  motives  incident  to 
human  nature,  and  the  working  of  those  motives  depends  upon 
complicated  and  often  obscure  facts  of  production,  trade,  social 
life,  with  which  men  generally  are  not  familiar  and  which  re- 
quire study  and  investigation  to  understand.  Thrusting  a rigid 
prohibition  or  command  into  the  operation  of  these  forces  is 
apt  to  produce  quite  unexpected  results.  Moreover,  we  already 
have  a great  body  of  laws,  both  statutory  and  customary,  and 
a great  body  of  judicial  decisions  as  to  the  meaning  and  effect 
of  existing  laws.  The  result  of  adding  a new  law  to  this  exist- 
ing body  of  laws  is  that  we  get,  not  the  simple  consequence 
which  the  words,  taken  by  themselves,  would  seem  to  require, 
but  a resultant  of  forces  from  the  new  law  taken  in  connection 
with  all  existing  laws.  A very  large  part  of  the  litigation,  in- 
justice, dissatisfaction,  and  contempt  for  law  which  we  deplore 
results  from  ignorant  and  inconsiderate  legislation  with  per- 
fectly good  intentions.  The  only  safeguard  against  such  evils 
and  the  only  method  by  which  intelligent  legislation  can  be 
reached  is  the  method  of  full  discussion,  camparison  of  views, 
modification,  and  amendment  of  proposed  legislation  in  the 
light  of  discussion  and  the  contribution  and  conflict  of  many 
minds.  This  process  can  only  be  had  through  the  procedure 
of  representative  legislative  bodies. 

No  system  of  self-government  will  continue  successful  unless 
the  voters  have  sufficient  public  spirit  to  perform  their  own 


7 


duty  at  the  polls,  and  the  attempt  to  reform  government  by  es- 
caping from  the  duty  of  selecting  honest  and  capable  represent 
tlves,  under  the  idea  that  the  same  voters  who  fail  to  perform 
that  duty  will  faithfully  perform  the  far  more  onerous  and  diffi- 
cult duty  of  legislation^  seems  an  exhibition  of  weakness  rather 
than  of  progress. 

SYMPTONS  OF  NATIONAL  DECAY  AND  THE  REMEDY. 

Wm.  Preston  Hill.  Abstracts  (Affirmative). 

The  Initiative  and  Referendum  do  not  aim  to  abolish  the 
representative  form  of  government  we  now  have,  or  substitute 
another  in  its  place.  It  leaves  our  representative  system  just 
as  it  is,  but  guards  it  from  abuse  and  from  becoming  misrepre- 
sentative.  It  will  perform  the  same  function  as  the  safety  valve 
on  an  engine.  Silent  and  unnoticed  when  not  needed,  but  most 
useful  when  the  danger  line  is  reached. 

Two  theories  in  regard  to  representative  government  have 
prevailed.  One  is  that  the  representative  is  elected  to  think  for 
the  people.  The  other  is  that  the  people  think  for  themselves 
and  elect  representatives  to  act  for  them.  In  this  country  we 
have  adopted  this  last  theory,  because  the  people  make  their 
constitutions,  and  regulate  and  control  their  legislatures  by 
constitutional  provisions.  Furthermore,  our  parties  pledge  their 
candidates  to  certain  platforms,  to  which  they  must  adhere  after 
election,  which  shows  that  we  believe  that  the  representative 
is  bound  by  the  will  of  the  people.  If  we  believed  that  the  rep- 
resentative was  to  do  our  thinking  for  us,  we  would  not  hamper 
or  direct  him  with  a platform. 

The  Referendum  makes  the  people  the  real,  instead  of  the 
nominal,  masters.  It  takes  away  from  the  representatives  the 
absolute,  uncontrolled  power  they  now  often  claim,  and  brings 
them  under  the  control  of  the  people,  whose  agents  they  are. 
The  Referendum  will  make  them  the  true  responsible  agents 
of  the  people,  instead  of  the  irrespon.sible  masters  they  now 
sometimes  become. 

It  applies  to  political  life  the  well  known  and  successful 
principles  of  business  life.  The  reason  that  there  is  no  trouble, 
in  private  life,  to  secure  a faithful  agent,  is  because  the  agent  is 
at  all  times  under  the  control  of  his  principal,  who  can  veto 
his  acts  or  discharge  him^  if  he  finds  him  working  against  his 
interests.  If  a private  business  man  should  adopt  the  plan  of 
electing  his  agent  for  a term  of  years  and  give  him  an  irrevoc- 
able power-of-attorney  to  do  what  he  liked  with  his  business 


8 


and  property  during  his  term  of  office,  it  is  self-evident  that, 
at  the  end  of  the  agent’s  term,  the  principal  would,  in  the  ma- 
jority of  cases,  have  no  business  or  property  left.  Yet  this  is 
exactly  what  we  have  done  under  our  representative  system. 

In  adopting  the  Referendum  therefore,  we  simply  apply  the 
well-known  rules  of  business  prudence  to  our  political  life. 

Anyone  can  readily  see  that  this  amendment  will  practically 
put  an  end  to  the  corruption  that  has  invaded  and  dominated 
our  political  life.  When  we  take  away  from  our  legislatures  the 
power  to  finally  dispose  of,  or  sell,  or  give  away  anything  with- 
out the  reviewing  vote  of  the  people,  then  bribery  will  cease, 
because  nobody  will  pay  out  money  to  those  who  cannot  make 
final  delivery  of  the  desired  legislation.  When  the  acts  of  the 
legislature  are  liable  to  be  reviewed  at  any  time  by  the  people, 
then  the  opportunities  for  rascality  and  corruption  will  have 
passed  away.  After  the  adoption  of  the  Referendum  the  whole 
people  alone  will  be  able  to  make  final  delivery  of  franchises, 
legislation,  etc. 

Professor  J.  R.  Commons,  the  well-known  professor  of  Po- 
litical Economy,  says:  “One  of  the  most  important  issues  be- 
fore the  American  people  today,  is  bribery.  No  reform  move- 
ment, no  citizens’  union,  or  the  like,  can  fully  cope  with  it.  The 
Referendum  is  the  only  complete  and  specific  cure  for  this  con- 
dition. It  alone  goes  to  the  source  of  corruption.  It  deprives 
the  law-makers  and  executives  of  their  monopoly  of  legislation. 
After  the  adoption  of  the  Referendum  they  can  no  longer  de- 
liver the  goods.” 

It  is  not  proposed  that  there  shall  be  special  elections.  It  is 
proposed  that  the  initiative  and  referendum  questions  may  be 
placed  on  the  official  ballot  to  be  voted  on  at  regular  elections. 
It  will  therefore  not  increase  the  number  of  our  elections  or 
make  them  more  cumbersome  or  burdensome  than  at  present. 

The  expense  and  labor  necessary  to  get  up  the  petitions  arc 
a sure  guarantee  against  its  being  used  for  any  trivial  reason. 
The  percentage  required  to  invoke  either  the  initiative  or  refer- 
endum means  that  it  is  no  easy  task  to  invoke  them. 

Every  citizen’s  sphere  of  thought  and  responsibility  will  be 
enlarged  by  the  Referendum.  With  the  reality  of  power  comes 
the  feeling  of  responsibility.  The  nation  will  become  one  great 
parliament.  Each  citizen  who  expects  to  vote  on  a new  meas- 
ure, must  give  it  his  attention,  and  thus  grow  in  intellect,  sta- 
bility of  character,  and  public  spirit.  Under  the  present  sys- 
tem, the  difficulty,  almost  hopelessness,  of  carrying  any  reform, 


9 


legislation  against  the  interests  of  the  great  corporations  and 
the  politicians,  tends  to  discourage  our  citizens  from  taking  an 
active  interest  in  public  affairs. 

An  open  door  to  popular  discussion  and  decision  disarms 
discontent  and  gives  it  a peaceful  vent.  It  prevents  its  accumu- 
lation and  draws  it  away  from  destructive  methods  of  escape. 

It  will  simplify  and  purify  elections.  It  is  much  easier  to 
vote  upon  measures  than  upon  men.  Each  law  will  be  adopted 
on  its  merits.  Under  this  system  a man  will  not  have  to  vote 
for  one  or  more  things  he  does  not  approve  of  in  order  to  vote 
for  another  thing  he  does  favor.  He  will  not,  as  under  the 
present  system,  have  to  help  elect  some  black-leg  or  trickster 
to  the  position  of  councilman,  sheriff,  legislator,  etc.,  in  order 
to  save  the  tariff,  free  trade,  free  silver,  sound  money,  or  other 
policy  in  which  he  may  believe.  It  frequently  happens  under 
the  present  system  that  neither  one  of  the  parties  represents 
entirely  the  views  of  some  voters.  One  voter,  for  instance,  may 
favor:  a reduction  of  the  tariff  (Democratic),  a colonial  policy 
(Republican),  and  public  ownership  of  railroads  (Democratic). 
If  he  votes  for  either  one  party  or  the  other^  under  the  present 
system,  he  must  vote  against  some  of  the  measures  he  favors. 
And  his  choice  is  often  still  more  complicated  by  the  nomination 
of  candidates  whom  he  does  not  consider  fit  to  hold  office  on 
the  very  ticket  he  would  like  to  vote  for.  Under  the  Referen- 
dum, however,  each  question  being  presented  separately  to  his 
vote,  he  could  voice  his  sentiments  accurately  on  every  point 
and  could  also  vote  for  the  best  candidates  regardless  of  their 
opinions  on  disputed  issues. 

It  has  been  objected  “that  the  people  are  not  competent  to 
vote  on  laws;  that  they  might  act  rashly  or  be  too  easily  swayed 
by  a demagogue.”  This  is  not  so  much  an  objection  to  the 
Referendum  as  it  is  an  objection  to  the  whole  theory  of  Amer- 
ican government.  Popular  Sovereignty  is  the  living  spirit  of  our 
institutions.  The  American  idea  of  justice  holds  that  those  who 
are  to  obey  the  law  should  have  an  equal  voice  in  making  the 
law.  It  was  to  guarantee  this  right  that  our  representative  gov- 
ernment was  established.  But  those  who  object  to  the  Refer- 
endum, on  the  ground  that  the  people  might  act  rashly,  seem 
to  be  wedded  to  the  representative  system,  not  because  it  gives 
the  people  a voice  in  their  affairs,  but  because,  to  a degree  at 
least,  it  thwarts  the  popular  will.  Apparently  they  prize  the 
representative  S5'stem  because  it  sometimes  fails  of  its  purpose 
to  give  effect  to  the  popular  will.  The  advocates  of  the  Refer- 


10 


enduni,  however,  are  better  friends  of  the  representative  sys- 
tem. They  prize  it  because,  in  spite  of  its  defects,  it  sometimes 
reflects  the  popular  will.  We  urge  the  initiative  and  referendum 
as  safeguards  of  this  system.  By  making  it  more  directly 
answerable  to  the  people,  we  hope  to  cure  its  defects,  and  pre- 
vent its  perversion.  We  say  with  Lincoln:  “Why  should  there 
not  be  a patient  confidence  in  the  people;  is  there  any  better  or 
equal  hope  in  the  world?” 

It  has  been  objected  against  the  referendum  that  the  people 
will  make  mistakes.  We  admit  that  the  people  will  sometimes- 
make  mistakes,  but  the  minority  will  make  mistakes,  as  well  as 
the  majority,  and  there  is  one  important  difference  between  their 
mistakes.  The  majority  never  intentionally  make  a mistake  and 
when  they  do,  they  correct  it  as  soon  as  they  find  it  out.  but 
the  minority  sometimes  find  it  so  profitable  to  make  mistakes  at 
the  expense  of  the  majority,  that  they  arc  slow  to  correct  them. 

The  Referendum  is  already  a fundamental  fact  in  American 
government  and  a settled  principle  in  our  legislative  system. 
It  does  not  require  the  adoption  of  any  new  principle  or  method. 
Both  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  have  been  in  constant  use 
in  America  ever  since  the  Mayflower  crossed  the  sea.  All  that 
is  needed  is  an  extension  of  established  principles  and  methods 
to  cases  quite  as  much  within  their  scope  as  those  to  which  they 
are  now  applied.  In  the  old  New  England  town  meeting  we 
have  the  ideal  democracy  in  respect  to  local  affairs.  Any  citi- 
zen could  make  a motion  or  enter  the  discussion  and  all  could 
vote.  The  town  meeting  is  the  initiative  and  referendum  applied 
to  town  business.  The  famous  historian,  John  Fiske,  called  it 
■“the  best  political  training-school  in  existence.” 

It  has  been  the  universal  practice  in  America  to  use  the  Ref- 
erendum in  making  and  amending  our  Constitutions,  which 
shows  that  our  citizens  are  already  convinced  that  it  is  the 
best  possible  plan  of  legislation  since  it  is  the  one  they  adopt 
in  respect  to  their  highest  and  most  important  laws.  But  objec- 
tions to  the  Referendum  are  best  answered  by  the  experience  of 
communities  where  it  has  been  given  a trial.  Arguments  are 
no  longer  necessary,  for  it  is  now  possible  to  judge  it  by  its 
fruits. 

Fifty  years  ago  Switzerland  was  infested  with  class  rule, 
political  turmoil  and  corruption,  profligacy  and  plunder  of  the 
people’s  rights.  Today,  after  twenty-five  years’  experience  of 
the  Referendum,  it  is  the  best  governed  country  and  the  most 
ideal  democracy  of  the  world.  Professor  Charles  Boregeaud,  of 


11 


the  University  of  Geneva,  says  of  the  Referendum:  “It  has 
won  its  case.  Unquestionably  it  has  proved  a boon  to  Switzer- 
land and  has  no  more  enemies  in  the  generation  of  today.”  Hon. 
Numa  Droz,  the  venerable  statesman  and  ex-president  of  the 
Swiss  Republic,  says:  “Under  the  influence  of  the  Referendum, 
a profound  change  has  come  over  the  spirit  of  both  parliament 
and  people.  It  has  abolished  corruption.” 

It  has  been  successful  in  the  United  States  where  it  has  been 
tried;  in  South  Dakota,  Utah,  Illinois,  Oregon,  Nevada,  Okla- 
homa, and  others.  It  would  be  difficult  to  chronicle  the  pro- 
gress that  has  been  made  in  applying  this  principle  to  municipal 
affairs,  so  many  are  the  city  charters  that  now  contain  some 
provision  for  the  Referendum.  In  many  of  the  cities  where 
it  has  had  full  and  fair  application,  it  has  routed  the  forces  of 
corruption  and  given  the  people  an  honest  government  for  the 
first  time  in  their  history. 

In  Cincinnati,  one  application  of  the  Referendum  saved  the 
people  $222,000,  which  the  politicians  were  preparing  to  loot. 
In  1906,  the  corrupt  politicians  had  conspired  to  sell  the  rail- 
road to  Chattanooga  which  Cincinnati  owns;  but  the  sale  had 
to  be  ratified  by  the  direct  vote  of  the  people  and  they  prompt- 
ly turned  down  the  conspiracy  of  their  legislative  assembly. 
Subsequently  the  people  ratified  a sixty  year  lease  of  the  road 
on  terms  which  gave  the  city  $222,000  more  than  the  previous 
proposition  would  have  realized.  These  are  startling  figures 
and  should  teach  us  a profound  lesson. 

The  question  of  Direct  Legislation,  therefore,  is  equivalent 
to  the  questions:  Ought  the  people’s  will  to  govern  all  the 
time,  or  only  a part  of  the  time?  Shall  the  ascertainment  and 
execution  of  the  people’s  will  be  made  as  easy  and  perfect  as 
possible,  or  shall  it  continue  imperfect  and  difficult? 

The  business  of  the  corporation  lobbyist,  and  the  legislative 
blackmailer  is  to  secure  bad  laws  and  obstruct  good  ones.  By 
the  Referendum  the  people  will  be  able  to  defeat  bad  laws  and 
by  the  Initiative  they  will  be  able  to  overcome  the  obstruction 
to  good  laws.  It  is  therefore,  the  most  important  “next  step” 
in  political  reform  in  this  country.  To  deny  the  Initiative  and 
Referendum  is  to  deny  self-government:  to  affirm  self-govern- 
ment is  to  affirm  the  Initiative  and  Referendum. 

THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM. 

James  Boyle.  Abstracts  from  the  “Initiative  and  Referendum.”  (Negative). 

In  principle  and  practice  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  rev- 
olutionary, in  that  it  is  opposed  to  the  established  representa- 


12 


tive  system  of  our  American  Government.  Of  course  it  will 
not  be  disputed  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  pro- 
vides for  the  representative  system  of  legislation  in  the  Fed- 
eral Government.  Neither  can  it  be  disputed  that  the  Fathers 
deliberately  chose  this  system,  after  giving  due  consideration  to 
other  forms,  including  direct  legislation,  as  was  then  being 
expounded  by  Rousseau. 

The  principles  and  practical  effects  of  the  initiative  and  ref- 
erendum are  reactionary  as  well  as  revolutionary.  Those  who 
advocate  direct  legislation  are  ‘Tetrogressives,”  not  “progres- 
sives.” They  have  their  faces  and  feet  turned  not  to  the  future, 
but  to  the  past, — and  that  past  is  strewn  with  the  wrecks  and 
failures  of  pure  democratcy.  It  is  admitted  that  the  “moot”  of 
Old  England  and  the  town  meeting  of  New  England  are  equally 
unsuited  to  the  conditions  of  today.  So  the  retrogressives  have 
adopted  the  Swiss  system  of  making  laws  by  ballot,  entirely 
ignoring  the  great  differences  in  the  government  and  the  politic- 
al, social,  and  geographical  coinditions  of  Switzerland  as  com- 
pared with  those  of  the  United  States. 

The  initiative  and  the  referendum  are  really  two  distinct 
propositions,  founded  on  antagonistic  principles.  The  initia- 
tive is  based  on  the  principle  that  a minority  of  voters — general- 
ly 8 per  cent — shall  be  given  the  right  not  only  to  initiate  con- 
stitutional amendments  or  statutory  laws,  but  to  decide  the 
exact  form  in  which  they  shall  be  presented  for  passage,  with- 
out giving  the  vast  majority  of  the  voters — 92  per  cent — either 
directly  or  through  their  representatives,  any  opportunity  to 
amend  them.  In  this  respect  the  modern  initiative  is  far  in- 
ferior in  principle  to  the  ancient  pure  democracy,  for  the  latter, 
theoretically  anyhow,  possessed  the  principle  of  majority  rule. 
Quite  apart  from  the  advantage  of  having  received  careful 
scrutiny  and  the  safeguard  of  having  to  pass  through  several 
committees,  a legislative  law  has  this  immense  superiority  over 
an  initiative  law: — it  is  formulated  by  a majority  of  the  voters 
of  the  state  in  a representative  sense; — that  is,  the  committees 
that  recommend  it  are  selected — directly  or  indirectly — by  a 
majority  of  the  legislature,  which  practically,  in  a numerical 
idea,  represent  a majority  of  the  voters;  then,  if  a majority  of 
the  members  of  the  legislature — who  represent  the  majority  of 
the  voters  of  the  state — want  to  do  so  they  can  amend  or 
change  the  bill  to  meet  their  views.  But  an  initiative  bill  rep- 
resents the  views  of  nobody  but  the  signers  of  the  petition — a 
small  minority  of  the  total  number  of  voters,  and,  human  nature 


13 


being  what  it  is,  probably  a large  proportion  of  the  signers  have 
not  got  the  slightest  knowledge  of  what  they  signed.  It  is 
notorious  that  men  can  be  easily  persuaded  to  sign  petitions 
for  almost  anything. 

The  theory  of  the  referendum  must  be  conceded  to  be  that 
the  people — that  is^  a majority  of  the  people — shall  rule,  in  the 
final  passage  of  laws.  Yet  in  its  universal  application  there  is 
recognized  the  absolute  right  of  a small  minority — from  5 to  8 
per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  voters — to  suspend  legislative 
laws  duly  passed  by  the  representatives  of  a majority  of  the 
people;  and  in  practice  it  results  in  another  minority  finally 
passing  these  laws,  for  the  history  of  the  referendum  is  that 
only  a minority  of  the  electors  vote  for  the  proposition. 

It  is  true  that  some  economists  contend  that  “silence  gives 
consent”  and  that  if  a majority  permit  a minority  to  pass  a law, 
the  majority  have  no  right  to  complain.  But  the  same  argu- 
ment holds  good  as  to  the  representative  system:  for  undoubt- 
edly most  of  the  political  evils  of  the  day  arise  from  the  neglect 
of  a large  proportion  of  the  people  to  avail  themselves  of  their 
civic  privileges  and  obligations.  It  is  to  be  further  remarked, 
also,  that  it  isan  experience  seldom  with  an  exception,  in  Switz- 
erland as  in  America,  that  citizens  take  far  greater  interest  in 
the  election  of  men  than  they  do  in  the  passage  of  laws.  All 
observers,  native  and  foreign,  are  impressed  with  the  apathy  of 
voters  to  the  propositions  submitted  to  them;  and  it  has  been 
demonstrated  in  Switzerland  that  compulsory  voting  is  no 
remedy,  as  from  20  to  30  per  cent  of  the  voters  cast  blank  bal- 
lots. What  is  the  remedy?  Certainly  not  giving  people  more 
of  what  they  plainly  show  they  do  not  want. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  is  not  only  a menace  to  honest 
and  reform  government,  but  is  a false  friend  to  labor.  It  pro- 
vides a device  through  which  unscrupulous  “special  interests” 
can  secure  their  ends  with  far  greater  ease  that  they  can  under 
the  representative  system,  when  they  have  familiarized  them- 
selves with  its  tricks  and  when  the  general  public  have  become 
wearied  of  the  numerous  petitions  and  elections  peculiar  to  the 
system. 

American  trade  unionists  have  generally  endorsed  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum  for  the  reason  that  they  believe  that 
through  it  they  can  secure  certain  reforms  they  demand.  Pos- 
sibly they  might  do  so; — and  probably  also,  they  can  in  due 
time  by  the  exercise  of  patience  and  intelligent  agitation,  secure 
the  same  reforms  through  the  representative  system,  should 


14 


their  demands  appeal  to  the  sense  of  reason  and  fair-play  of 
the  people  of  the  state.  But  in  advocating  the  initiative  and  ref- 
erendum the  trade  unionists  are  short-sighted.  If  they,  as  an 
organized  minority, — and  that  they  are  a decided  minority  of  the 
total  electorate  must  be  conceded — can  secure  their  demands 
through  the  initiative  and  referendum,  so,  likewise,  can  other 
minorities  use  the  scheme  for  purposes  that  are  altogether  self- 
ish. Because  Switzerland  has  the  iniative  and  referendum  it  is 
often  spoken  of  as  “the  most  democratic  country  in  th  world.” 
As  a matter  of  fact,  however^  so  far  as  the  wage  earners — the 
“proletariat” — are  concerned,  the  United  States,  England^  Aus- 
tralia, New  Zealand,  and  Canada — all  under  th  representative 
system — are  far  more  democratic  and  far  more  responsive  to 
labor’s  demands  for  reform,  than  is  Switzerland.  The  reason  is 
that,  as  explained  elsewhere,  the  majority  of  the  people  of 
Switzerland  are  naturally  conservative  and  anti-Socialist,  they 
being  small  peasant  proprietors.  No  labor  man  or  Socialist 
will  dispute  the  authority  of  Robert  Hunter.  In  his  “Socialists 
at  Work”  (1908)  he  says  (speaking  of  Switzerland): 

“The  electoral  system  is  open  to  much  fraud,  which  is  un- 
scrupulously practiced  b}'-  the  capitalist  parties  to  keep  the 
workers  from  representation  in  the  National  Council.  At  the 
last  election  the  socialists  assembled  70,000  votes,  by  which  they 
claim  to  have  won  25  seats,  but  they  were  only  allowed  six.  Re- 
cent inquiries  have  been  made  into  the  extent  of  exploita- 
tion of  child-labor,  with  the  appalling  revelation  that  53  per 
cent  of  the  children  attending  school  are  also  employed  in  la- 
borious daily  work.  The  school  teachers  complain  that  the 
mentality  is  now  very  low,  and  that  40  per  cent  of  the  children 
are  stunted.  Capitalism  has  become  intense,  and  with  it  an  al- 
most savage  system  of  oppression  has  been  instituted  by  the 
government.  Switzerland  has  become  notorious  for  the  fre- 
quency with  which  the  soldiery  is  used  against  the  workmen.”  ' 

And  all  this  in  the  model  initiative-referendum  republic. 

An  overwhelming  objection  to  the  system  is  that  v.dierever 
it  has  been  tried  it  has  resulted  in  minority  rule.  Even  in 
Switzerland — the  most  favorable  state  possible  for  the  system 
— direct  legislation  is  always  by  minorities.  This  is  so  as  to 
important  as  well  as  to  comparatively  trifling  matters.  The 
vote  on  the  prohibition  of  absinthe — a question  of  great  inter- 
est in  Switzerland — only  reached  370,470,  out  of  a total  voting 
strength  of  over  800,0(X). 

Profesor  Qberholtzer  says  in  his  book,  “The  initiative  and 

15 


referendum  in  America:”  “There  is  but  a fraction  equal  to 
about  half  of  all  those  who  know  their  minds  respecting  candi- 
dates who  seem  to  care  anything  about  measures.”  At  special 
elections,  “it  is  impossible  to  get  out  even  half  the  vote,  unless 
it  be  a proposition  to  deprive  a citizen  of  his  beer  or  gin.  Even 
a proposal  to  enfranchise  an  entire  new  half  of  the  race,  and 
to  double  the  electorate,  or  to  ally  the  state  openly  with  lot- 
tery men  and  gamblers,  fails  to  get  a majority.” 

What  is  true  of  Switzerland  and  the  United  States  is  true 
of  Canada.  In  no  country  of  the  world  are  politics  keener  than 
in  the  Dominion,  and  public  questions  are  discussed  there  as  a 
rule  with  a fervor  rare  even  in  the  United  States.  But  the 
Canadians  will  not  go  to  the  polls  to  vote  simply  on  pro- 
positions;— there  must  be  “the  human  touch”  of  candidates  to 
bring  out  the  vote. 

It  is  sometimes  argued  that  if  the  majority  fail  to  vote  it 
is  their  own  fault  if  the  minority  carry  the  day, — and  that  the 
majority  have  no  right  to  complain.  It  is  not  a matter  of  com- 
plaining,— it  is  a matter  of  adopti?ig  a system  the  universal  ex- 
perience with  which  is  that  it  elicits  the  interest  of  only  a 
minority  of  the  voters.  The  argument  referred  to  cuts  both 
ways, — it  can  be  used  in  favor  of  the  representative  system  with 
just  as  much  force:  for  if  a majority  of  the  electors  took  suffi- 
cient interest  to  elect  honest  and  capable  men,  there  would,  ad- 
mittedly be  no  need  of  the  initiative  and  referendum; — and  if 
this  is  not  done,  then  the  electors  have  no  right  to  complain; 
the  remedy  is  in  the  people's  hands,  and  if  they  don’t  use  it  it  is 
their  own  fault.  But  human  nature  must  be  accepted  as  it  is, 
and  the  wise  statesman  tries  to  utilize  it  to  the  best  advantage. 
He  certainly,  however,  will  not  make  it  easy  for  the  minority 
to  enforce  its  will  against  the  majority,  even  though  the  ma- 
jority is  to  blame,  unless  such  a system  is  absolutely  unavoid- 
able. That  is  the  best  system  of  popular  government  which  ap- 
peals to  the  largest  number  of  the  electors  in  an  intelligent 
manner,  not  in  a mere  transitory  fashion,  but  continuously. 
There  is  something  radically  wrong  with  a system  the  inevi- 
table and  universal  tendency  of  which  is  to  cause  a majority  of 
the  electors  to  practically  disfranchise  themselves.  The  initia- 
tive and  referendum  as  an  effective  instrument  of  popular  gov- 
ernment is  opposed  to  human  nature  and  human  experience;-^ 
that  of  itself  absolutely  condemns  it. 

Advocates  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  are  compelled  to 
recognize  the  force  of  the  objection  that  crude  measures  are 


16 


sure  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  under  their  system.  It  is 
now  suggested  that  the  legislature  should  have  power  to  amend 
crude  measures  adopted  by  the  people  under  the  initiative.  This, 
certainly  would  be  desirable  should  the  initiative  unfortunately 
become  established  in  our  system  of  legislation;  but  it  is  a con- 
fession that  direct  legislation^  while  possibly  all  right  as  an  ab- 
stract theory,  is  impracticable  as  a system  of  actual  legislation. 
There  is  also  this  serious  objection  to  the  suggested  com- 
promise: In  its  very  essence  direct  legislation  is  a proclamation 
that  the  people  do  not  trust  the  legislature;  it  is  therefore 
reasonable  to  assume  that  legislators  would  take  but  little  in- 
terest in  bills  submitted  to  them  under  the  initiative,  particu- 
larly when  they  would  have  to  be  referred  back  to  the  people 
for  adoption;  the  probable  consequence,  therefore,  would  be 
that  the  legislators  would  be  inclined  to  wash  their  hands  of  the 
entire  matter,  and  let  the  bills  pass  even  with  conceded  de- 
fects. First,  there  would  be  general  indifference  because  of  lack 
of  direct  responsibility;  and  secondly,  the  legislators  would 
take  rather  a cynical  pleasure  in  demonstrating  that  the  people 
en  masse  are  incapable  of  legislating  properly.  While  these 
governing  influences  are  not  to  be  commended,  they  are  quite  in 
line  with  the  influences  controlling  human  nature; — and  no  leg- 
islation or  system  of  government  in  the  world  has  yet  suc- 
ceeded in  killing  human  nature. 

One  of  the  strongest  objections  is  that  under  the  initiative, 
measures  must  be  accepted  or  rejected  in  their  entirety.  Under 
the  representative  system,  it  is  very  seldom  that  a bill  is  passed 
in  the  exact  form  in  which  it  is  introduced, — even  though  it  be 
drawn  up  by  an  experienced  legislator.  It  is  scrutinized  by  a 
committee  in  each  branch,  and  then  has  to  be  read  and  debated 
by  the  members  of  both  branches.  Finally,  it  has  to  run  the 
gauntlet  of  the  governor’s  veto.  But  under  the  initiative  every 
measure  must  be  submitted  exactly  in  the  form  in  which  it  is 
on  the  petition.  Even  though  the  substance  of  the  bill  might 
be  worthy,  yet  the  form  of  the  bill  might  be  defective;  or  it  is 
quite  likely  that  while  part  of  the  bill  might  be  advisable  to 
enact,  other  portions  might  be  highly  objectionable.  But  the 
initiative  bill  must  go  to  the  people  without  a change  of  a word, 
and  be  voted  upon  with  all  its  original  imperfections.  “Let  the 
people  rule!”  To  give  opportunities  for  needed  amendments 
is  an  interference  with  that  divine  right! 

Honorable  James  Bryce,  the  British  Ambassador  to  the 
United  States,  has  a very  interesting  chapter  in  his  incompara- 


17 


ble  work,  “The  American  Commonwealth,”  on  direct  legisla- 
tion. He  notes  the  tendencies  of  the  American  people  to  dis- 
trust their  legislatures^  and  “to  seize  such  chances  as  occurred 
of  making  laws  for  themselves  in  their  own  way;”  and  he 
adds:  “Concurrently  with  the  growth  of  these  tendencies  there 
had  been  a decline  in  the  quality  of  .the  state  legislature,  and  of 
the  legislation  w'hich  they  turned  out.”  According  to  Mr.  Bryce, 
each  of  these  tendencies  re-acted  upon  the  other.  He  pro- 
ceeds to  say: 

“What  are  the  practical  advantages  of  this  plan  of  direct 
legislation  by  the  people?  Its  demerits  are  obvious.  Besides 
those  I have  already  stated,  it  tends  to  lower  the  authority  and 
sense  of  responsibility  in  the  legislature;  and  it  refers  matters 
needing  much  elucidation  by  debate  to  the  determination  *of 
those  who  cannot,  on  account  of  their  numbers,  meet  together 
for  discussion,  and  many  of  whom  have  never  thought  about 
the  matter.  These  considerations  will  to  most  Europeans  ap- 
pear decisive  against  it.  The  proper  course,  they  will  say,  is 
to  improve  the  legislatures.  The  less  you  trust  them,  the  worse 
they  will  be.  They  may  be  ignorant;  yet  not  so  ignorant  as 
the  masses.”  (P.  453,  2nd  Edition  of  the  American  Common- 
wealth.) 

There  are  two  great  fallacies  underlying  the  theory  of  the 
initiative  and  referendum: 

(1)  That  a community  which,  through  indifference,  incom- 
pentency,  or  corruption,  fails  to  elect  honest  and  capable  legis- 
lative representatives,  will  wisely  perform  the  infinitely  more 
complex  and  delicate  function  of  passing  laws  directly. 

(2)  That  the  necessity  for  laws  being  skillfully  drawn,  care- 
fully scrutinized,  and  thoroughly  debated,  considered  and  formu- 
lated, before  being  presented  for  passage^  can  be  ignored. 

From  these  fallacies  follow  the  inevitable  evils  which  con- 
demn the  system  as  being  unsound  and  even  vicious,  both  logic- 
ally and  as  the  results  of  actual  experience. 

DIRECT  LEGISLATION. 

John  Z.  White.  Abstracts  from  a reprint  from  the  Public,  January  8,  1908. 
(Affirmative). 

The  referendum  and  initiative  are  the  means  by  which  self- 
government  is  secured  by  any  group  of  men  under  any  condi- 
tions whatsoever.  Interference  with  these  is  just  so  much  sub- 
stracted  from  the  fact  of  self-government. 

If  the  people  of  a city,  State,  or  the  nation,  are  in  truth  to  be 


18 


self-governing  it  seems  inevitably  to  follow  that  they  must  have 
at  hand  the  means  of  making  the  government  do  their  bidding. 
The  people  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  for  instance,  voted  in  favor 
of  public  ownership  of  their  street  car  system,  but  the  board  of 
aldermen  were  able  to  thwart  the  popular  desire.  The  people 
of  Philadelphia,  and  many  other  places,  have  repeatedly  found 
themselves  unable  to  achieve  their  wish.  To  many,  self-govern- 
ment has  for  such  reason  come  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  ir- 
idescent dream. 

This  pessimistic  view  arises  from  the  fact  that  we  are  possess- 
ed of  but  part  of  the  necessary  machinery  of  self-government. 
We  are  like  an  engineer  who  has  all  essentials  save  the  gov- 
ernor. His  engine  will  “go,”  but  its  action  is  beyond  all  orderly 
control. 

The  initiative  and  referendum,  taken  together,  are  called  di- 
rect legislation.  That  is,  just  as  in  any  deliberative  body  if  the 
usual  machinery  does  not  produce  desired  results,  the  body  can 
act  directly.  So,  if  our  city  or  other  government  does  not  act 
rightly,  the  body  of  the  people,  when  possessed  of  machinery 
of  direct  legislation,  can  act,  or  legislate,  directly.  Without 
this  power  they  are  really  not  self-governing. 

With  the  initiative  and  referendum  the  will  of  the  people 
cannot  be  thwarted  by  indirect  methods.  In  the  legislature, 
“pigeonholing”  and  obscure  amendments  frequently  divert  or 
even  reverse  the  effect  of  a law  as  first  introduced.  A bill,  on 
being  presented  to  the  legislature,  is  referred  to  a committee. 
Unless  those  interested  in  its  adoption  are  sufficiently  powerful 
to  overcome  any  opposition  that  may  appear,  the  bill  is  never 
heard  of  again — it  is  “pigeonholed.” 

If  forced  from  the  committee,  and  its  enemies  cannot  out- 
vote its  friends,  it  may  be  placed  so  far  down  on  the  list  of  bills 
that  the  day  of  adjournment  arrives  before  it  is  acted  upon. 
Failing  to  stop  the  bill  by  these  methods,  amendments  are  pro- 
posed, and  it  often  happens -that  a few  members  are  (or  pro- 
fess to  be)  convinced  the  amendments  are  desirable,  when  in 
fact  they  render  the  whole  bill  useless. 

If  a bill  finally  gets  through  one  house,  it  must  travel  the 
same  course  in  the  other.  Failure  of  the  two  houses  to  agree 
often  leads  to  a conference  committee  from  both — with,  of 
course,  another  opening  for  clever  minds. 

After  all  this  the  bill  miay  still  be  vetoed.  Later  still  it  must 
run  the  gauntlet  of  the  courts. 

All  of  these  methods  of  obstruction  are  avoided  by  the  ini- 

19 


tiative  and  referendum.  A bill  properly  signed  and  filed  goes 
to  the  people  without  obstruction.  The  people  adopt  or  reject. 
All  opportunity  to  deceive  or  poison  is  eliminated. 

Direct  legislation  is  merely  the  application  to  our  public  af- 
fairs of  these  methods  that  experience  has  shown  best  suited 
to  attain  the  end  desired.  That  end  is  self-government.  Do  we 
want  self-government?  It  sometimes  seems  problematical. 
Capable  men  who  oppose  direct  legislation  can  explain  their 
attitude  only  on  the  ground  that  the  people,  in  their  judgment, 
are  not  capable  of  managing  their  own  affairs.  Such  men  are 
tories.  They  have  no  proper  place  in  the  American  scheme  of 
government. 

If  it  be  held  that  we  have  in  fact  conducted  this  government 
for  above  a century  without  direct  legislation  and  that  we  may 
safely  continue  “in  the  path  our  fathers  trod,"  we  would  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  in  nothing  else  are  we  satisfied  with  the 
ways  of  our  fathers.  They  used  the  ox  cart — we  do  not.  Just 
as  we  have  improved  on  our  fathers’  mechanical  appliances, 
without  violence  to  the  principles  of  mechanics,  so  it  may  be 
possible  to  improve  on  governmental  machinery  wdthout  in  any 
way  altering  the  correct  principles  of  government  which  we 
inherit. 

The  principle  of  the  first  locomotive  is  identical  with  that 
of  the  last.  The  changes  have  all  been  in  the  elimination  of 
defective  methods  in  detail,  to  the  end  that  the  essential  principle 
involved  might  be  more  fully  realized.  Why  is  it  not  the  part 
of  wisdom  to  eliminate  like  defective  details  in  the  machinery 
of  our  government? 

Again,  when  w'e  remember  that  for  the  first  time  in  history 
self-government  on  a large  scale  was  attempted  in  America  is 
it  at  all  surprising  that  the  machinery  first  installed  is  defec- 
tive in  detail?  Would  it  not  be  profoundly  astonishing  if  that 
machinery  were  not  defective? 

REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT  AS  AGAINST 
DIRECT  GOVERNMENT. 

Samuel  W.  McCall.  Abstracts  from  Address  (NegatiTc). 

In  our  legislation  the  work  of  investigation  and  of  perfect- 
ing details  is  of  such  great  difficulty  that  proposed  laws  are  dis- 
tributed among  the  various  committees,  which  are  charged  with 
the  duty  of  considering  their  exact  terms.  The  legislative  body 
as  a whole,  although  its  members  are  paid  for  doing  the  work, 
can  not  safely  assume  to  pass  upon  the  intricate  questions  of 
legislation  without  investigation  by  committees  selected  witlr 


20 


reference  to  their  fitness  for  the  task.  The  proposed  law  as  per- 
fected by  a committee  is  brought  before  the  representative  as- 
sembly and  it  is  there  again  discussed  and  subjected  to  criticism, 
both  as  to  policy  and  form,  and  in  this  open  discussion  defects 
often  appear  which  require  amendment  and  sometimes  the  de- 
feat of  the  bill.  And  even  with  these  safeguards,  laws  often 
find  their  way  upon  the  statute  books  which  are  not  best  adapt- 
ed to  secure  the  purposes  even  of  their  authors. 

But  what  would  be  the  procedure  under  the  initiative?  In 
Oregon  a law  may  be  initiated  upon  a petition  of  8 per  cent  of 
the  voters,  and  it  then  goes  to  the  people  upon  the  question  of 
its  final  enactment  without  the  intervention  of  any  legislature. 
Some  man  has  a beautiful  general  idea  for  the  advancement  of 
mankind,  but  beautiful  general  ideas  are  exceedingly  difficult  to 
put  into  statutory  form  so  that  they  may  become  the  rule  of  con- 
duct for  a multitude  of  men.  Another  man  may  have  a selfish 
scheme  which,  like  most  selfish  schemes,  may  be  concealed  un- 
der specious  words.  The  beautiful  idea  or  the  selfish  scheme 
is  written  by  its  author  in  the  form  of  law,  and  he  proceeds  to 
get  the  requisite  number  of  signers  to  a petition.  With  a due 
amount  of  energy  and  the  payment  of  canvassers,  these  signa- 
tures can  be  secured  by  the  carload,  and  the  proposed  law  then 
goes  to  the  people  for  enactment,  and  the  great  mass  of  us,  upon 
the  farm,  on  the  hillside,  and  in  the  city,  proceed  to  take  the 
last  step  in  making  a law  which  nine  out  of  ten  of  us  have  never 
read.  And  this  is  called  popular  rights  and  giving  the  people  a 
larger  share  in  their  government! 

Of  course  one  must  be  cautious  about  expressing  a doubt 
that  the  people  in  their  collective  capacity  can  accomplish  im- 
possibilities. You  may  say  of  an  individual  that  he  should  have 
some  special  preparation  before  he  attempts  to  set  a broken 
arm  or  perform  a delicate  operation  upon  the  eye.  But  if  yon 
say  that  of  all  of  us  in  a lump,  some  popular  tribune  will  de- 
nounce you.  And  yet  there  is  ground  for  the  heretical  sus- 
picion, admitting  that  each  one  of  the  people  may  have  in  him 
the  making  of  a great  legislator,  that  there  should  be  one  sim- 
ple prerequisite  which  he  should  observe  in  order  to  be  any  sort 
of  a legislator  at  all.  He  should  first  read  or  attempt  to  under- 
stand the  provisions  of  a bill  before  solemnly  enacting  it  into 
law.  One  can  scarcely  be  accused  of  begging  the  question  to 
say  that  the  voters  would  not  read  a whole  volume  of  laws  be- 


21 


fore  voting  upon  them.  The  slightest  knowledge  of  human 
nature  would  warrant  that  assertion. 

How  many  even  of  the  most  intelligent  of  our  people^  of 
college  professors  or  ministers,  read  the  statutes  that  have  al- 
ready been  passed  and  are  to  govern  their  conduct?  Even 
lawyers  are  not  apt  to  read  them  generally,  but  in  connection 
with  particular  cases.  But  if  some  proof  were  necessary,  one 
has  only  to  cite  some  of  the  Oregon  laws.  For  example,  there 
are  two  methods  of  pursuing  the  salmon  fisheries  in  the  Co- 
lumbia River.  In  the  lower  and  sluggish  waters  of  the  stream 
fishing  is  done  by  the  net,  and  in  the  upper  waters  by  the 
wheel.  The  net  fishermen  desired  to  prohibit  fishing  by  the 
v.'heel,  and  they  procured  sufficient  signatures  and  initiated  a 
law  having  that  object  in  view.  On  the  other  hand,  the  wheel 
fishermen  at  the  same  time  wished  to  restrict  fishing  by  net,  and 
they  initiated  a law  for  that  purpose.  Both  laws  went  before 
the  people  at  the  same  election  and  they  generously  passed  them 
both,  and  thus,  so  far  as  the  action  of  the  people  was  concerned, 
the  great  salmon  fisheries  of  the  Columbia  were  practically  stop- 
ped. 

The  referendum  may  sometimes  profitably  be  used  in  con- 
nection with  questions  affecting  municipalities,  where  each  voter 
has  an  appreciable  interest  in  the  solution  of  the  question  and 
is  familiar  with  the  conditions  upon  which  the  solution  depends; 
but  as  a step  in  the  process  of  passing  statutes  of  the  usual 
character,  statutes  which  create  crimes  and  provide  penalties 
for  their  violation,  or  which  have  complicated  regulations  of 
a business  character,  the  use  of  the  referendum  would  be  vi- 
cious. We  are  not  in  the  mass  adapted  to  pass  upon  questions 
of  detail,  just  as  the  thousands  of  stockholders  of  a great  cor- 
poration are  not  in  a position  directly  to  manage  its  business 
affairs.  The  function  that  we  can  best  exercise  is  that  of  select- 
ing agents  for  that  purpose  and  of  holding  them  responsible 
for  results.  Upon  the  questions  relating  to  the  character  of  rep- 
resentatives, who  are  usually  known  personally  to  the  people, 
they  have  excellent  means  for  forming  a judgment.  But  if  they 

often  make  a mistake  in  their  judgments  of  the  men  they  se- 
lect, as  we  must  infer  from  the  arguments  in  favor  of  direct 
legislation,  how  much  more  would  they  be  apt  to  make  mistakes 
in  dealing  with  the  complicated  questions  involved  in  practical 
legislation. 

We  are  so  engrossed  in  our  private  business  that  many  of 
13S  give  no  attention  to  public  questions^  or  we  too  frequently 


22 


bestow  upon  the  latter  such  superficial  study  that  our  action 
becomes  the  dangerous  thing  that  is  based  upon  little  knowl- 
edge. This  condition  of  indifference,  even  under  our  present 
"'3Stem,  produces  nothing  but  an  evil  effect  upon  our  laws;  and 
this  evil  effect  would  be  greatly  intensified  under  the  initiative 
and  referendum.  Legislation  may  be  expected  to  represent  in 
the  long  run  the  fair  average  of  the  information  and  the  study 
of  the  body  which  enacts  it,  whether  that  body  be  composed  of 
four  hundred  legislators  or  one  hundred  millions  of  people. 

A reform  that  is  most  needed  is  one  that  will  make  difficult 
the  passage  of  laws,  unless  they  repeal  existing  statutes.  The 
mania  of  the  time  is  too  much  legislation  and  the  tendency  to 
regulate  everybody  and  everything  by  artificial  enactments. 
The  referendum  would  not  be  likely  to  furnish  the  cure  for  this 
evil,  but  would  tend  to  increase  the  number  of  questionable 
statutes  that  would  be  referred  to  the  people;  and  some  of  them 
would  doubtless  be  enacted.  If  those  who  are  chosen  and  paid 
to  do  the  work,  and  upon  whom  the  responsibility  is  placed, 
are  sometimes  found  to  enact  vicious  laws,  what  would  be  the 
result  if  legislation  were  enacted  by  all  of  us  when  we  had  made 
no  special  investigation  of  details,  when  we  should  be  quite  too 
prone  to  accept  the  declamatory  recommendations  of  the  ad- 
vocates of  legislative  schemes,  and  submissively  swallow  the 
quack  nostrums  that  might  be  offered  for  the  diseases  afflict- 
ing the  body  politic? 

The  most  dangerous  statutes  are  those  which  deal  with  ad- 
mitted evils,  and,  in  order  to  repress  them,  are  so  broadly  drawn 
as  to  include  great  numbers  of  cases  which  should  not  fairly 
come  within  their  scope,  or  to  create  a borderland  of  doubt 
where  the  great  mass  of  us  may  not  clearly  know  how  to  regu- 
late our  conduct  in  order  that  we  may  comply  with  their  pro- 
hibitions. Just  such  statutes,  with  a basis  of  justice  but  with 
imperfectly  constructed  details,  would  be  the  most  likely  to  pre- 
vail upon  a popular  vote.  If  the  forty-six  states  of  the  union 
and  the  National  Government  which  is  the  aggregate  of  them 
all  should  have  this  system  of  direct  legislation,  our  statute 
books  would  very  soon  become  a medley  of  ill-considered  re- 
forms, of  aspirations  sought  to  be  expressed  in  the  cold  prose  of 
statutes,  of  emotional  enactments  perpetuating  some  passing 
popular  whim  and  making  it  a rule  of  conduct  for  the  future; 
and  the  strict  enforcement  of  our  laws  would  mean  the  de- 
struction of  our  civilization. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  turn  back  to  the  supreme  crises  in  Amer- 

23 


ican  history  when  its  greatest  figures  were  heroically  struggling 
for  what  they  saw  to  be  for  the  interests  of  their  country,  and. 
how  the  whole  course  of  history  might  have  been  changed, 
and  how  ambition  and  envy  might  have  utilized  a temporary 
unpopularity  to  terminate  some  splendid  career  if  the  policy  of 
the  recall  had  been  in  force. 

As  an  illustration,  take  Lincoln  in  the  earlier  days  of  his  ad- 
ministration. The  disastrous  defeats  that  the  Union  had  suf- 
fered had  been  relieved  only  by  slight  successes.  Lincoln  scarce- 
ly had  a friend  even  in  his  own  cabinet.  Seward  was  willing  to 
take  him  under  guardianship  and  run  the  country  for  him,  Stan- 
ton had  written  of  the  “imbecility”  of  the  administration;  Chase 
was  ready  to  be  a candidate  for  the  presidency  himself;  the  abo- 
litionists were  unsparing  in  their  criticism;  the  great  organs 
of  public  opinion  were  hostile  to  him;  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that,  if  a proceeding  for  recall  could  have  been  had  against 
him  at  the  moment  when  he  was  enveloped  in  the  clouds  of  un- 
popularity, the  career  of  the  greatest  of  Americans  would  have 
been  brought  to  a disgraceful  ending,  with  results  to  civilization 
which  it  is  melancholy  to  contemplate. 

Those  who  advocate  the  direct  action  of  our  great  democracy 
might  study  with  a good  deal  of  profit  the  history  of  the  de- 
mocracy of  Athens.  No  more  brilliant  people  ever  existed  than 
the  Athenian  people.  They  had  a “genius”  for  government.  The 
common  man  was  able  to  “think  imperially.”  We  marvel  when 
we  consider  the  surviving  proofs  of  their  civilization.  But  when 
they  did  away  with  all  restraints  upon  their  direct  action  in 
the  making  and  enforcement  of  lav/s,  in  administering  justice, 
and  in  regulating  foreign  affairs,  their  greatness  was  soon 
brought  to  an  end  and  they  became  the  victims  of  the  most 
odious  tyranny  to  which  any  people  can  be  subjected,  the  tyranny 
that  results  from  their  own  unrestrained  and  unbridled  action. 

DIRECT  LEGISLATION. 

Frank  Parsons.  The  City  for  the  People,  pp.  303-370.  Abstracts  (Affirma- 
tive). 

The  referendum  is  the  key  to  progress.  It  will  open  the 
door  to  all  other  reforms.  It  is  not  the  people  who  defeat  re- 
form. The  people  want  honest  government,  civil  service  reform, 
and  just  taxation.  They  vote  overwhelmingly  against  monopoly 
rule  and  for  public  ownership  of  street  franchises  and  public 
utilities  almost  every  time  they  have  the  opportunity.  It  is  the 
power  of  money  and  corporate  influence  and  official  interest 
that  checkmate  progress.  Miles  of  petitions  have  gone  into 


24 


Congress  for  a postal  telegraph.  By  the  million  our  people 
have  expressed  the  wish  for  such  an  institution,  and  Hon.  John 
Wanamaker  says  in  his  very  able  argument  on  the  subject^  that 
the  Western  Union  is  the  only  visible  opponent  of  the  move- 
ment. It  is  enough,  however,  for  it  has  more  weight  with  Con- 
gress where  its  interests  are  touched  than  all  the  75  millions 
of  “common”  people  in  the  country.  But  if  the  common  people 
made  the  law,  the  Western  Union  would  weigh  several  tons 
less,  and  the  nation  would  own  the  telegraph  in  a very  short 
time. 

Hundreds  of  instances  might  be  named  in  which  councils, 
legislatures,  and  congresses  have  persistently  defeated  the  well 
known  will  of  the  people.  It  is  not  sufficient  now  to  educate 
the  people  to  a new  idea,  or  even  to  elect  representatives  on 
promise  to  carry  it  into  execution;  you  have  also  to  fight  the 
power  of  money  and  corruption  in  the  legislature  that  will  steal 
away  or  put  to  sleep  the  ardor  of  your  legislators. 

How  important  it  is  that  progress  should  rest  with  the  peo- 
ple free  of  hindrance  from  their  rulers  is  clearly  brought  out  in 
this  fine  passage  from  the  great  historian,  Buckle: 

“No  great  political  improvement,  no  great  reform,  either 
legislative  or  executive^  has  ever  been  originated  in  any  country 
by  its  rulers.  The  first  suggestors  of  such  steps  have  invariably 
been  bold  and  able  thinkers,  who  discern  the  abuse  and  denounce 
it  and  point  out  how  it  is  to  be  remedied.  But  long  after  this 
is  done,  even  the  most  enlightened  governments  continue  to  up- 
hold the  abuse  and  reject  the  remedy.” 

Wendell  Phillips  says:  “No  reform,  rhoral  or  intellectual, 
ever  came  from  the  upper  classes  of  society.  Each  and  all  came 
from  the  protest  of  the  martyr  and  the  victim.  The  emancipa- 
tion of  the  working  people  must  be  achieved  by  the  working 
people  themselves.” 

Direct  legislation  will  tend  to  the  purification  of  politics 
and  the  elevation  of  government.  It  is  not  the  people  who  put 
up  jobs  on  themselves,  but  corrupt  influences  in  our  legislative 
bodies;  the  referendum  will  kill  the  corrupt  lobby  and  close  the 
doors  against  fraudulent  legislation.  It  will  no  longer  pay  to 
buy  a franchise  from  the  aldermen,  because  the  aldermen  can- 
not settle  the  matter;  the  people  have  the  final  decision,  and  they 
are  so  many  that  it  might  cost  more  to  buy  their  votes  for  the 
franchise  than 'the  privilege  is  worth.  It  is  comparatively  easy 
for  a wealthy  briber  to  put  his  bids  high  enough  to  overcome 
the  conscience  or  other  resistance  of  a dozen  councilmen.  It 


25 


is  quite  a different  matter  to  overcome  the  consciences  or  other 
resistance  of  a thousand  or  a hundred  thousand  citizens.  Leg- 
islative bribery  derives  its  power  from  concentration  of  temp- 
tation resulting  from  the  power  of  a few  legislators  to  take 
final  action. 

Demagoguery  and  the  influence  of  employers  over  the  votes 
of  their  employees  will  be  diminished  factors  in  elections.  When 
the  question  is  voting  an  office  to  A or  to  B,  one  as  good  as 
the  other  for  all  the  voter  knows,  a two-dollar  bill  or  the  wish 
of  his  employer  may  seem  to  the  voter  to  be  worth  more  than 
the  problematical  difference  between  the  two  candidates,  for 
whatever  their  platforms  and  promises  there  is  little  possibility 
of  telling  what  they  will  do  when  elected.  But  when  the  ques- 
tion comes  directly  home  to  the  self-interest  of  the  voter,  on 
a bill  to  give  away  public  property  or  franchises,  or  make  an 
extravagant  contract,  etc.,  the  voter  will  use  the  protection  of 
the  secret  ballot  and  record  his  opinion,  regardless  of  two-dollar 
bills  or  the  wishes  of  employers. 

The  power  of  rings  and  bosses  will  be  greatly  reduced  by 
the  referendum;  indirectly  so  far  as  concerns  their  administra- 
tive power;  directly  so  far  as  concerns  the  large  portion  of  their 
power,  which  depends  on  controlling  legislation.  Nothing  will 
do  more  than  the  referendum  for  the  cause  of  civil  service 
reform  and  the  awakening  of  a strong  interest  in  politics  and 
the  ballot  on  the  part  of  the  best  people,  and, these  things  will 
quickly  abolish  the  boss  and  ring. 

Partisanship  will  sink  into  comparative  insignificance  in  the 
government  of  the  country.  At  present  about  all  the  guide 
the  average  voter  has  is  the  party  to  which  he  belongs.  He 
knows  little  or  nothing  of  the  candidates  on  either  side.  There 
are  only  a few  things  much  talked  of  in  the  campaign,  so  far 
as  his  party  papers  and  speakers  bring  him  information,  and  he 
thinks  his  party  is  right  on  these  things,  or  he  votes  with  it  be- 
cause his  father  did  or  his  employer,  and  because  there  is  no 
particular  reason  appealing  to  his  interests  to  prevent  him  from 
doing  so.  But  when  specific  measures  are  submitted  separately 
to  the  people  in  the  precise  form  in  which  they  are  to  take 
effect,  voting  will  assume  a difiniteness  heretofore  unknown, 
and  the  citizens  will  vote  on  each  measure  as  they  believe  their 
interests  require,  and  will  not  be  likely  to  rob^  themselves  or 
disregard  what  they  believe  to  be  for  their  own  benefit,  merely 
to  please  a part}'-  machine.  Not  only  will  the  interest  of  the- 
voter  lead  him  away  from  partisanship,  but  the  outside  pres- 


26 


sure  tending  to  make  him  a partisan  will  be  much  less,  since 
the  larger  part  of  the  motives  for  that  pressure — the  legislative 
and  administrative  spoils  to  be  gained  by  party  success — will 
disappear,  the  first  as  a direct  consequence  of  the  referendum, 
the  second  as  an  indirect  consequence  through  the  favored 
growth  of  civil  service  reform. 

The  referendum  will  simplify  as  well  as  purify  elections.  It 
is  much  easier  to  vote  upon  measures  than  men.  A man  is  a 
cyclopedia  of  measures  bound  in  mystery;  even  his  character 
is  a puzzle,  for  the  main  business  of  opposing  politicians  is  to 
fling  mud  at  each  other’s  candidates  until  it  is  impossible  to 
tell  how  much  is  mud  and  how  much  is  man,  or  some  other 
animal.  Instead  of  a tangled  mass  of  ignorance  and  vitupera- 
tion, the  referendum  will  bring  to  the  voters  a series  of  clear- 
cut  measures,  each  to  be  decided  on  its  own  merits.  Shall  we 
have  proportional  representation?  Shall  women  vote  on  the 
same  terms  as  men?  Shall  street  car  companies  be  required  to 
put  effective  fenders  and  vestibules  on  the  trolley  cars?  These 
are  questions  easily  understood  and  capable  of  decision  without 
the  perplexing  admixture  of  personal  considerations  or  inquiries 
as  to  whether  a candidate  for  office  did  not  behave  with  be- 
coming modesty  in  early  life,  or  loves  liquor  too  well,  or  wheth- 
er the  tariff  ought  to  be  higher,  or  silver  freer,  or  whether  hard 
times  or  the  good  ones  came  in  under  republican  or  democratic 
administrations. 

The  referendum  will  simplfy  and  dignify  the  law.  A law  that 
is  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  with  any  great  hopes  of  its 
adoption  must  be  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  and  we  shall  stand 
a chance  of  avoiding  in  future  the  piling  up  of  massive  tomes  of 
useless  enactments  which  the  legislature  itself  knows  little  or 
nothing  about  a month  or  two  after  their  passage,  even  if  under- 
stood at  the  time,  and  which  become  law  to  buttress  some  pri- 
vate interest  or  to  fill  up  the  time  of  our  legislators^  who,  elect- 
ed to  make  the  state’s  laws,  seem  to  measure  the  fulfillment  of 
their  duty  by  the  number  of  bills  they  enact. 

There  would  be  more  justice  and  less  litigation  by  far,  if 
the  courts  were  left  free  to  apply  broad  principles  instead  of 
being  compelled  to  give  attention  to  the  rigid  language  of  nar- 
roM'^-minded,  short-sighted  legislators,  and  if  men  were  able  to 
carry  the  law  in  their  consciences  instead  of  requiring  a tw^o- 
horse  team  to  convey  it  and  a line  of  lawyers  and  judges  from 
the  justice  court  to  explain  it  to  them,  and  then  be  in  danger 
that  they’ll  turn  around  the  next  day  and  declare  it  is  the  other 


27 


way.  It  is  one  of  the  most  ridiculous  things  in  modern  civiliza- 
tion that  every  man  is  presumed  to  know  the  law,  while  every- 
body knows  that  nobody  knows  it,  not  even  the  judges  of  the 
supreme  court. 

The  elevation  of  the  press  is  one  of  the  effects  of  the  refer- 
endum. and  one  which  alone  is  sufficient  to  make  it  an  incalcu- 
lable boon.  One  of  the  most  noticeable  and  important  of  all 
the  m.any  changes  produced  in  Switzerland  by  the  adoption  of 
direct  legislation,  is  the  substitution  of  fair  debate  for  noisy 
vituperation  in  the  columns  of  the  daily  papers.  It  will  do  a 
similar  work  in  America,  and  the  Lord  knows  that  we  sorely 
need  such  a change.  As  measures  are  put  in  the  place  of  men, 
sober  discussion  will  take  the  place  of  the  traffic  in  abuse.  The 
tendency  to  manufacture  facts,  and  deluge  the  country  with 
sophistries  will  not  so  readily  yield,  but  even  in  this  respect 
th.ere  is  sure  to  be  a great  improvement.  When  the  people 
come  to  direct  their  own  afafirs  they  will  demand  the  truth; 
they  will  want  the  actual  facts,  so  that  they  may  judge  correct- 
ly in  respect  to  their  business,  just  as  a board  of  directors  of  a 
private  corporation  wants  the  facts,  and  regards  deception  of 
themselves  as  one  of  the  most  unpardonable  sins. 

Direct  legislation  will  have  a profound  educational  effect. 
Wendell  Phillips  said  long  ago  that  the  discussions  accompany- 
ing the  presidential  elections  give  the  people  a tremendous  in- 
tellectual lift  every  four  years. ' With  the  referendum,  the  pro- 
gress will  be  continuous,  instead  of  spasmodic,  with  intervals 
wide  enough  for  the  pupils  to  forget  nearly  all  that  they  learn 
at  each  lesson,  as  at  present. 

Nowhere  on  the  face  of  the  globe  do  you  find  as  high  an 
average  of  keen  intelligence  as  among  the  men  of  a New  Eng- 
land town  trained  from  boyhood  in  the  town-meeting.  Con- 
tinual voting  on  measures  supplies  an  invaluable  discipline  in 
place  of  the  retrograde  influences  often  involved  in  personal 
elections.  Every  citizen’s  sphere  of  thought  and  responsibility 
v/ill  be  enlarged  by  the  referendum^  and  growth  will  be  the  re- 
sult. Besides  being  a University  in  itself,  the  referendum  will 
make  the  public  welfare  depend  so  directly  and  obviously  on 
the  morality  and  intelligence  of  the  people,  and  not  on  the 
sagacity  and  probity  of  a few  individuals,  that  patriots,  states- 
men, and  business  men  will  combine  to  develop  to  the  utmost 
every  means  of  educating  the  masses,  and  a great  impetus  will 


28 


be  given  to  popular  education,  with  a corresponding  improve- 
ment in  the  results. 

The  emotional  development  of  the  people,  as  well  as  their 
intellectual  growth  will  follow  from  the  referendum.  The  con- 
sciousness of  added  power  and  responsibility  will  give  the  vot- 
ers a new  dignity  and  a nobler  manhood.  They  will  feel  like 
judges  in  the  court  of  final  appeal.  Not  mere  selectors  of  some- 
body to  boss  them,  but  rulers  themselves.  Such  changes  in 
spiritual  attitude  and  environment  always  work  most  powerfully 
upon  the  moral  and  emotional  development  of  the  individual  and 
the  race.  The  patriotic,  law-abiding,  law-enforcing  sentiments 
of  the  people  will  be  specially  intensified  by  the  referendum,  be- 
cause they  will  know  that  the  country  is  theirs  not  merely  in 
name,  but  in  fact. 

The  referendum  favors  stability  by  developing  patriotism  and 
education,  securing  greater  simplicity  and  better  enforcement 
of  law,  driving  bad  men  out  of  politics  and  bringing  good  men 
in,  supplying  a safety  valve  for  popular  discontent,  and  requir- 
ing a more  careful  consideration  of  legislation.  Long  use  of 
the  referendum  has  shown  that  it  is  conservative.  This  clearly 
appears  from  facts  already,  stated  concerning  its  use  in  this 
country,  and  its  record  in  Switzerland  for  thirty  years  shows 
that  two-thirds  of  the  measures  submitted  to  the  people  were 
rejected  by  them. 

Large  economies  will' result  from  direct  legislation  through 
the  stopping  of  jobs,  extravagant  contracts,  corrupt  legislation 
of  all  sorts,  cutting  down  the  power  of  bosses  and  rings,  sim- 
plifying the  law,  reducing  litigation  and  diminishing  the  ex- 
’ penses  of  even  the  legitimate  government.  When  the  people 
really  make  the  laws,  they  will  arrange  things  for  their  inter- 
ests. They  will  banish  unnecessary  offices,  reduce  the  salaries 
of  lofty  officials,  abolish  jobbery  and  extravagance,  get  rid  of 
the  iniquitous  spoils  system,  cut  down  the  power  of  corporate 
wealth,  rescind  all  forfeited  franchises  and  take  control  of  mis- 
behaving monopolies.  Economy,  justice,  and  purity  will  go 
hand  in  hand.  The  cost  of  taking  the  referendum  vote  will  be 
very  slight;  not  a half  of  the  saving  on  the  one  item  of  print- 
ing the  laws;  not  a tenth  of  the  value  of  many  a franchise  it  will 
keep  from  being  stolen. 

The  referendum  will  give  labor  its  true  weight.  Labor’s  in- 
terest in  the  referendum  is  measureless;  it  is'  par  excellence  rhe 
workingman’s  issue.  The  present  delegate  system  places  labor 
at  a tremendous  disadvantage  as  compared  with  capital.  Near- 


29 


ly  all  the  delegates  are  wealthy  or  sympathize  with  the  wealthy, 
or  are  under  their  influence.  Labor  cannot  expect  a great  deal 
from  legislators;  and  the  weapon  it  has  largely  relied  upon, 
the  organized  strike,  is  being  abolished  by  injunction.  Not 
without  reason,  for  it  is  certainly  against  the  public  interest  to 
allow  a big  corporation  and  its  employees  to  settle  their  dis- 
agreements by  private  war  in  the  heart  of  a great  city,  to  the 
vast  disturbance  of  business  and  perhaps  the  destruction  of 
life  and  property — ^just  as  much  against  the  public  interest  as 
it  would  be  to  allow  two  individuals  to  settle  a dispute  by  con- 
flict in  the  public  streets.  Nevertheless,  labor  is  coming  to  be 
in  a very  tight  place  without  the  strike  and  without  effective  rep- 
resentation in  the  halls  of  legislation.  What  is  the  remedy? 
Courts  of  compulsory  arbitration  would  do  some  good,  but  the 
fundamental  constitutional  cure  is  direct  legislation. 

Not  the  producing  classes  alone,  but  every  other  class  in 
the  community  will  be  benefited  by  the  referendum.  It  must 
be  clear  by  this  time  that  all  who  wish  justice  and  good  gov- 
ernment will  be  benefited  by  direct  legislation,  and  it  is  equally 
true  that  even  the  bosses  and  tricksters  will  receive  a priceless 
boon  by  the  removal  of  the  temptations  that  help  to  make  them 
evil  men,  and  the  establishment  of  conditions  tending  to  lift 
them  to  a nobler  plane  of  life. 

Experience  speaks  strongly  for  the  referendum,  not  only 
from  its  successful  use  in  the  United  States^  but  also  from  its 
use  in  England  and  Canada  and  most  eloquently  of  all  from 
the  splendid  results  of  its  complete  adoption  in  Switzerland.  In 
Canada  the  referendum  is  often  used  to  ascertain  public  opinion 
on  important  measures,  and  has  done  some  excellent  work  in 
the  same  way  as  in  our  cities  and  states  when  used  voluntarily 
by  the  legislatures  or  councils. 

In  England  the  referendum  principle  is  very  effectively  ap- 
plied. Every  “appeal  to  the  people”  after  each  dissolution  of 
parliament  is  practically  a referendum.  Parties  go  to  the  peo- 
ple, not  with  vague  generalities  muddled  in  a heap  of  promises 
which  the  promisors  never  dream  any  one  would  be  so  discourt- 
eous as  to  ask  them  to  fulfill,  but  with  a distinct  course  of  leg- 
islation clearly  marked  out,  a definite  and  practical  measure  re- 
duced to  the  very  terms  it  is  proposed,  to  enact  into  law,  an 
actual  bill  which  the  people  sit  in  judgment  upon,  hear  the  ad- 
vocates for  and  against  and  reject  or  approve  as  they  set  fit. 

It  is  to  Switzerland,  however,  that  we  must  turn  for  the  ful- 
lest development  of  the  referendum.  Fifty  years  ago  Switzer- 


30 


land  was  more  under  the  heels  of  class  rule  than  we  are  today: 
political  turmoil,  rioting,  civil  war,  monopoly,  aristocracy  and 
oppression — that  was  the  history  of  a large  portion  of  the  Swiss 
until  within  a few  decades.  Today  the  country  is  the  freest  and 
most  peaceful  in  the  world.  What  has  wrought  the  change? 
Simply  union  and  referendum— union  for  strength,  the  referen- 
dum for  justice.  Union  to  stop  war  and  riot — the  referendum 
to  overcome  monopoly,  aristocracy  and  oppression. 

The  final  and  fundamental  political  argument  for  the  direct 
legislation  is  that  it  is  necessary  to  true  self-government.  It 
is  the  only/way  to  establish  public  ownership  of  the  government. 
It  is  the  only  way  to  prove  and  overcome  misrepresentation  with 
due  precision  and  promptness.  It  is  the  only  practicable  means 
of  destroying  the  great  lawmaking  monopoly  which  holds  us 
in  its  grip  today,  and  which  is  not  only  a terrible  evil  in  itself, 
but  the  prolific  parent  and  protector  of  other  monopolies  and 
oppressions. 

THE  ABNORMAL  IN  LAW  MAKING. 

Francis  B.  James.  Abstracts  from  Address.  (Negative). 

Legislation  is  merely  adding  legal  sanctions  to  the  princi- 
ples of  sociology.  When  those  charged  with  power  to  make 
laws  select  a sanction  reasonably  adequate  to  enforce  such  a 
principle  and  when  such  principle  has  been  ascertained  by  in- 
ductions neither  too  broad  nor  too  narrow  including  human  na- 
ture and  sound  ethics  such  legislation  is  normal.  When,  how- 
ever, the  principle  is  ascertained  without  thoughtful  research  and 
is  impractical  in  its  application,  then  such  legislation  is  ab- 
normal. This  can  be  illustrated  by  the  Blue  Laws  of  the  co- 
lonial days;  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws  of  Adams’  administra- 
tion; the  Silver  Purchase  Act;  some  provisions  of  the  Contract 
Labor  Law,  and  various  features  of  the  Anti-Trust  law.  The 
movement  in  favor  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  another 
example  of  the  abnormal  in  law  making. 

From  time  immemorial  laws  have  been  made  either  directly 
by  the  sovereign  or  indirectly  by  a representative  deliberative 
body.  Law  making  is  direct  legislation  whether  the  sovereign 
is  an  absolute  monarch  or  whether  the  sovereign  is  a body  of 
people.  In  Russia  until  the  last  few  years  laws  were  made  di- 
rectly by  the  Czar  without  the  intervention  of  a deliberative 
body.  It  has  been  a fundamental  principle  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race  '‘from  the  time  whereof  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not 
to  the  contrary”  to  have  laws  framed  by  a representative ‘de- 


31 


liberative  body.  The  Magna  Charta  signed  by  King  John,  June 
15,  1215,  guaranteed  that  the  people  should  “have  the  common 
council  of  the  Kingdom,”  which  afterwards  came  to  be  known 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  III  as  “the  Parliament.”  The  principle 
of  a representative  deliberative  body  to  frame  laws  received  the 
sanction  of  the  Petition  of  Right  in  1628  and  the  Bill  of  Rights 
in  1689.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  complained  against 
King  George  for  “suspending  our  own  legislature  and  declaring 
themselves  vested  with  power  to  legislate  for  us  in  all  cases 
whatsoever.”  The  Revolution  successfully  contended  against 
the  power  of  the  British  Sovereign  to  legislate  directly  for  the 
people  of  America  and  in  favor  of  indirect  legislation  by  a rep- 
resentative legislative  body.  The  query  is  not  whether  one  is 
for  or  against  the  initiative  and  referendum  but  whether  he  is 
for  or  against  legislation  by  the  initiative  and  referendum.  There 
are  governmental  affairs  in  which  the  referendum  is  proper,  but 
not  as  a method  of  law  making.  Law  making  by  the  initiative 
and  referendum  is  the  most  dangerous  innovation  ever'  pre- 
sented to  the  American  people.  The  constitution  of  a state  is 
a social  compact  binding  the  citzens  together  into  a political 
unit  and  therefore  is  a proper  subject  for  a popular  vote.  The 
constitution,  however,  merely  defines  the  departments  of  govern- 
ment and  imposes  limitations  on  the  exercises  of  the  power  of 
each,  and  is  more  or  less  permanent  in  its  nature.  The  refer- 
endum is  also  proper  in  giving  or  withholding  support  to  admin- 
istrative acts  vitally  and  irrevocably  affecting  for  an  extended 
period  of  time  all  the  members  of  a local  community. 

Law  making  includes  the  science  of  ethical  compromise. 
Laws  merely  reflect  social  and  economic  conditions.  On  these 
there  is  always  a marked  difference  of  opinion.  When  these 
differences  are  irreconcilable  and  stubbornly  divide  a com- 
munity, it  brings  unrest  and  an  evasion  of  law  by  one-half  of 
the  community  and  creates  a distrust  of  all  laws.  When  a com- 
munity is  sharply  divided  on  its  economic  and  social  views, 
there  should  be  some  method  of  arbitrating  differences  on  a 
fair  basis.  A deliberative  body  is  the  best  ever  created  for 
that  purpose.  Debate,  discussion,  and  criticism  tend  to  modify 
the  views  of  each  arbitrator  and  bring  about  legislation  which 
is  not  too  radical  to  either  side;  such  a body  is  not  compelled  to 
accept  or  reject  a single  proposition,  but  may  consider  alterna- 
tive propositions  and  take  the  best  from  all.  When  these  con- 
flicts between  inconsistent  views  pass  through  a single  delibera- 
tive body  it  has  been  found  that  such  a body  is  frequently  too 


32 


responsive  to  popular  impulse,  prejudice,  and  passion.  The 
Anglo-Saxon  race  wisely  devised  a second  deliberative  body 
with  a veto  power  in  an  executive  as  a check  on  hasty  action. 
Under  this  system  of  representative  government  with  proper 
constitutional  limitations  on  the  exercise  of  its  powers,  America 
has  grown  great  commercially,  politically,  morally,  and  socially. 
It  is  now  proposed  to  substitute  in  place  of  this  deliberative 
body  direct  legislation  by  the  direct  vote  of  the  people.  In 
other  words,  that  a small  class  of  people  may  project  a proposed 
law  which  the  people  must  accept  or  reject  without  change,  with 
no  alternative  between  one  measure  and  another,  upon  the  same 
subject,  and  if  criticism  shows  a measure  is  badly  drawn  or  de- 
fective, it  must  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  an  entirety  without 
change.  The  cry  has  been  raised  that  if  the  representatives  can- 
not trust  the  people,  the  people  cannot  trust  their  representa- 
tives. In  this  statement  is  involved  a fatal  fallacy.  The  peo- 
ple are  more  accustomed  to  study  human  nature  than  they  are 
to  study  the  details  of  a human  measure.  Government  by  the 
people  does  not  mean  that  each  citizen  must  perform  each  func- 
tion of  government.  In  the  affairs  of  life  there  must  be  a divis- 
ion of  labor.  Representative  government  is  merely  a recognition 
of  this  economic  principle.  This  palpable  fallacy  has  been  aim- 
ed at  the  executive  and  next  will  be  aimed  at  the  judiciary.  Each 
citizen  cannot  perform  all  the  functions  of  government.  Sup- 
pose, for  example,  there  was  a pipe  to  be  laid  on  the  streets 
of  some  city  or  an  engine  to  be  run  in  the  water  works.  No 
sane  person  would  trust  all  of  the  people  to  lay  the  pipe  or  run 
the  engine;  there  must  be  division  of  labor  and  the  most 
skilled  selected  to  perform  these  duties.  It  has  not  been  many 
years  since  Coxey’s  Army  marched  into  Washington  and  claim- 
ed that  the  land  about  the  Capitol  belonged  to  all  the  people 
and  each  member  of  Coxey’s  Army  had  a right  to  step  on  the 
grass.  To  have  encouraged  this  vandalic  principle  would  be 
-destructive  of  all  government.  It  would  give  the  right  to  any 
citizen  or  all  citizens  to  take  seats  upon  the  bench  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States,  while  in  session;  to  enter 
upon  the  most  secret  conferences  at  the  White  House;  to  in- 
terrupt the  sessions  of  the  legislative  body  and  occupy  the 
seats  of  the  members.  We  can  trust  all  the  people  and  all  the 
people  can  trust  their  representatives.  We  cannot  trust  all  the 
people  to  perform  all  the  functions  of  government.  A division 
of  labor  is  necessary. 


33 


ANSWERS  TO  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  INITIATIVE  AND 
REFERENDUM. 

Supplemental  Memorial  of  Initiative  and  Referendum  League  of  America 
Relative  to  National  Initiative  and  Referendum.  By  George  H.  Shibley  and 
Robert  L.  Owen.  pp.  10-15. 

Objections  to  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  come  from 
three  sources:  From  those  who  are  not  informed,  from  the 
misinformed,  and  from  the  ruling  few  and  their  agents. 

The  ruling  few  throw  dust,  endeavoring  to  confuse  the  issue^ 
for  they  cannot  win  in  a straight-out  debate,  as  is  evidenced 
by  the  results  wherever  the  issue  is  thoroughly  threshed  out. 
In  Maine,  for  example,  the  vote  submitting  the  constitutional 
amendment  was  unanimous.  In  Pennsylvania  the  last  house  by 
a unanimous  vote  passed  a bill  for  the  initiative  and  referendum 
in  cities  and  boroughs.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  initiative  and 
referendum  wins  in  a straight-out  debate.  It  is  only  by  fallacies 
that  our  opponents  can  make  a show.  All  the  facts  are  against 
them.  This  is  shown  by  an  examination  of  their  objections. 
Following  are  the  ones  most  frequently  urged  against  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  combination  witli 
a legislature  or  Congress. 

Objection  1.  It  would  destroy  representative  government. 

Answer:  The  exact  opposite  would  occur.  Representative 
government  will  be  restored,  as  is  evidenced  by  actual  results 
wherever  tlie  initiative  and  referendum  are  established.  In 
Oreg(>n.  fr-r  example,  the  establishment  of  a veto  powder  in  vot- 
ers and  the  power  of  direct  legislation  are  being  used  to  establish 
proportional  representation.  Proportional  representation  will 
be  real  representative  government — the  people’s  interests  will 
be  fully  represented.  The  opening  wedge  for  the  establishment 
of  proportional  representation  is  the  initiative  and  referendum 
principle  in  combination  with  legislatures  and  with  Congress. 

Today  machine  rule  exists,  and  machine  rule  is  not  represen- 
tative government,  as  you  all  know.  Representative  govern- 
ment used  to  exist  in  this  country,  for  the  voters  possessed  an 
option  to  instruct  their  elected  representatives.  But  the  con- 
vention SA'Stem  arose,  and  the  voters  ceased  to  exercise  the  right 
to  instruct  the  elected  representatives.  Thus  the  final  power 
became  lodged  in  the  party  machine,  and  then  the  convention 
system  was  debased,  and  we  had  the  detestable  rule  of  the  fewx 
This  system  has  been  terminated  in  Oregon  and  in  several  other 
States  by  the  establishment  of  a veto  powder  in  the  voters — the 
powe:'  of  direct  legislation.  The  legislature  is  used,  but  it  is 


34 


not  the  final  power;  the  final  power  is  in  the  voters,  where  it 
belongs.  The  initiative  and  referendum,  then,  restores  repre- 
sentative government.  It  does  not  destroy  representative  gov- 
ernment. It  destroys  machine  rule. 

Objection  2.  The  government  erected  by  the  fathers  should 
be  maintained. 

Answer;  The  existing  system  of  government  has  not  exist- 
ed since  1787,  but  only  for  about  seventy-five  years.  To  refuse 
to  note  the  distinction  between  the  existing  machine  rule  and 
preceding  people’s  rule  is  a gross  fallacy.  It  is  an  attempt  to 
deceive  the  public. 

Objection  3.  The  Federal  Constitution  declares,  “The  United 
States  shall  guarantee  to  every  state  in  the  Union  a republican 
form  of  government.”  The  installation  of  the  initiative  and 
referendum  in  connection  with  the  legislature  would  make  an 
unrepublican  form  of  government. 

Answer;  That  is  queer  logic;  to  restore  the  people’s  rule 
would  be  unrepublican.  Not  so;  what  the  United  States  (Gov- 
ernment guarantees  is  protection  against  a monarchical  form 
of  government  and  an  aristocratic  form  of  government.  It  was 
so  stated  in  1787  by  the  advocates  of  the  proposed  Constitution. 
(Letter  43  the  Federalist).  Furthermore,  the  meaning  is  shown 
by  referring  to  the  State  governments  existing  in  1787,  which 
admittedly  were  republican.  In  them  the  voters  balloted  direct 
on  public  questions  whenever  they  chose  to  do  so  and  the  wilt 
of  the  majority  was  an  instruction  to  legislative  representatives, 
who  obeyed.  The  initiative  and  referendum  is  in  principle  the 
same  as  instructions  to  elected  representatives. 

Objection  4.  The  existence  of  the  referendum  will  lower 
the  representative’s  sense  of  responsibility. 

Answer;  By  that  is  meant  that  the  representative  will  no 
longer  be  a ruler,  but  the  people’s  agent.  That  is  as  it  should 
be. 

Objection  5.  To  establish  the  direct  voting  by  the  people 
on  public  questions  will  terminate  the  equal  power  of  the  States 
in  the  Senate. 

Answer;  No,  for  it  is  to  be  provided  that  before  a measure 
shall  carry  it  must  receive  a majority  of  the  States,  as  well  as  in 
a majority  of  the  Congressional  districts.  This  double  majority 
is  provided  for  in  Switzerland,  and  it  is  a noticeable  fact  that 
each  measure  that  has  received  the  approval  of  a majority  of 


35 


the  voters  has  also  received  their  approval  in  the  majority  of 
the  Cantons  or  States. 

Objection  6.  In  the  States  where  there  are  large  cities  the 
farmers  should  oppose  the  establishment  of  the  initiative  and 
referendum  because  if  the  system  should  be  installed  the  farm- 
ers would  be  in  the  minority. 

Answer:  As  it  now  stands  the  farmers  and  people  in  the 
cities  are  both  ruled  by  the  monopolists,  through  the  machine- 
rule  system.  The  farmers  should  help  restore  the  people’s- 
rule,  for  it  will  help  themselves  as  well  as  help  their  fellow-men 
in  the  cities. 

It  seems  strange  to  hear  it  said  in  this  country  that  the 
farmers  should  advocate  the  rule  of  the  few,  and  those  few 
the  trust  kings.  The  farmers  are  '"skinned”  by  the  trusts  and 
other  machine-rule  contrivances  the  same  as  are  the  people  in 
the  towns.  Both  are  vitally  interested  in  terminating  machine- 
rule,  with  its  corruption,  special  privileges,  child  labor,  and  oth- 
er evils. 

Objection  7.  Too  few  people  vote  questions,  as  is  evi- 
denced b}'  the  extremely  small  vote  on  constitutional  amend- 
ments. 

Answer:  Those  who  have  not  voted  on  the  public  questions 
are  the  ones  who  have  not  studied  them.  They  have  been  care- 
less and  ignorant.  The  ones,  then,  who  have  decided  the  refer- 
endum questions  are  the  ones  who  have  taken  an  interest  in 
public  questions.  Inother  words,  there  has  been  a self-disfran- 
chisement of  the  unfit.  This  is  as  it  should  be. 

Furtherfore,  under  the  present  system  of  compulsory  refer- 
endum for  constitutional  amendments  there  usually  is  not  a 
proper  advertising  of  the  proposed  changes,  and  frequently  the 
referendum  ballot  gives  only  a general  description  of  the  ques- 
tion at  issue,  and  sometimes  the  question  is  unimportant.  The 
small  vote  under  these  circumstances  is  no  argument  against 
the  optional  referendum.  Our  opponent’s  claim  is  a fallacy. 
But  as  he  has  no  case,  he  is  obliged  to  argue  fallaciously  or  ad- 
mit that  he  is  defeated. 

Objection  8.  The  people  are  not  capable  of  deciding  intri- 
cate questions. 

Answer:  Under  the  initiative  and  referendum  the  only 

power  the  people  as  a whole  have  is  a veto  power.  They  merely 
can  reject  measures,  which  compel  the  legislative  representa- 
tives or  would-be  reformers  to  present  a revised  measure  or  ac- 
(|uiesce  for  a time.  Should  5 per  cent  of  the  voters  order  that 


36 


a tariff  bill  enacted  by  Congress  be  referred  to  tlie  people  and 
should  the  bill  be  rejected,  it  would  merely  send  it  back  to 
Congress  with  orders  to  pass  something  better  or  take  the  con- 
sequences. Undoubtedly  Congress  would  pass  another  bill  and 
it  would  be  nearer  the  people’s  ideal. 

Now  as  to  results.  Experience  demonstrates  that  where  the 
people  of  the  United  States  have  ruled  it  has  promoted  the  pub- 
lic welfare.  We  appeal  to  the  first  sixty-five  years  of  our 
country’s  history  and  to  present-day  results  wherever  our  peo- 
ple are  in  power.  Not  one  failure  is  cited  by  our  opponents; 
therefore  they  have  no  basis  for  their  objections. 

Objection  9.  The  opportunity  to  retire  a representative  who 
fails  to  be  truly  representative  is  all  that  the  people  wish  and 
need  to  enforce  their  will. 

Answer:  This  is  one  way  of  saying  that  the  existing  system 
of  machine  rule  is  satisfactory  to  the  people.  Why,  then,  are 
the  people  “kicking?”  Why  are  they  arguing  for  the  control 
of  the  trusts?  Evidently  the  people’s  interests  have  not  been 
cared  for  and  they  know  that  they  can  care  for  them — they  can 
establish  a direct  vote  system  for  public  questions.  It  will  re- 
sult in  an  immediate  control  of  the  trusts  and  eventually  re- 
sult in  the  restoration  of  representative  government.  Under  the 
existing  government  it  is  not  possible  for  the  people  to  elect  a 
really  representative  Congress.  Machine  rule  exists.  The  vot- 
ers are  not  the  ruling  power. 

Objection  11.  The  people’s  rule  would  result  in  radical  leg- 
islation. 

Answer:  When  the  people  regain  their  sovereignty  they 
undoubtedly  will  terminate  special  privileges,  but  in  going  about 
it  through  the  initiative  system  they  will  proceed  more  slowly 
than  would  a really  radical  Congress.  To  move  the  mass  of 
voters  is  more  difficult  than  to  get  a majority  vote  in  Congress. 

Objection  12.  The  people  are  too  easily  swayed.  They 
are  too  changeable.  They  are  liable  to  become  an  unreasoning 
mob. 

Answer:  A distinction  is  to  be  made  between  the  ancient 
small  democracies  and  present-day  democracies.  In  the  Greek 
democracies  all  the  voters  congregated  at  a single  meeting 
place  and  were  unhampered  by  constitutional  limitations  pro- 
vided by  a much  larger  bod}^  of  voters.  Today  all  is  changed. 
The  United  States  of  America  is  not  peopled  by  the  mercurial 
Greeks  of  2,500  years  ago,  but  principally  by  the  descendants  of 
a different  nation,  descendants  of  the  Teutons,  Gauls,  and  Celts, 


37 


who  possess  a spirit  of  liberty  and  an  enlightened  intelligence 
and  moral  fiber  which  make  them  more  capable  of  self-gov- 
ernment than  are  even  the  present  day  Greeks  and  Romans; 
and,  instead  of  the  possibility  of  changing  the  fundamental  law 
after  a few  hours’  debate,  led  by  two  or  three  popular  orators, 
there  is  provision  for  public  hearings,  for  taking  of  testimony 
and  cross-examination  of  witnesses,  followed  by  written  debate 
by  committees  of  experts;  and  the  printed  debate,  together  with 
the  copy  of  the  bill,  is  to  be  mailed  to  each  voter,  and  then  at 
election  time,  months  and  months  after  the  issue  shall  have 
been  raised^  it  is  to  be  decided  by  the  intelligence  of  the  coun- 
try. The  Oregon  system  has  resulted  in  enlightened  majority 
rule;  and  the  same  is  true  of  Switzerland.  The  modern  demo- 
cratic state,  instead  of  being  changeable,  is  the  most  stable  in 
the  world. 

Objection  13.  The  people  will  make  mistakes. 

Answer;  This  is  another  theory.  No  specific  instances  of 
mistakes  through  the  use  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  are 
given.  The  initiative  and  referendum  system  is  such  that  the 
people  understand  the  questions  at  issue  and  are  conservative. 
They  prefer  to  stick  to  existing  conditions  until  they  clearly 
see  that  the  proposed  change  will  be  beneficial.  If  mistakes 
were  being  made  the  laws  would  be  repealed.  This  nonrepeal 
of  measures  adopted  through  the  initiative  and  referendum  is 
conclusive  proof  that  the  people  have  not  made  mistakes.  They 
have  advanced  slowly,  but  surely. 

Objection  14.  Laws  would  be  poorly  drawn. 

Answer;  That  again  is  a mere  theory.  Experience  has  prov- 
ed otherwise.  Bills  are  drafted  by  those  who  wish  the  bills  to 
succeed,  and  not  by  corporation  lawyers  who  aim  to  defeat 
them.  Each  measure  is  clear  and  unequivocal,  for  there  is  no 
attempt  to  insert  something  which  the  Supreme  Court  can  use 
as  a basis  to  declare  the  law  unconstitptional. 

Objection  15.  Should  a small  per  cent  of  ,the  voters  be  em- 
powered to  bring  to  a vote  of  the  people  such  questions  as  they 
may  wish  to  propose  it  would  keep  the  country  in  a turmoil. 

Answer;  At  first  there  would  be  quite  a few  bills  and  pro- 
posed amendments,  for  the  few  have  ruled  for  nearly  seventy- 
five  years  and  are  in  power.  But  after  a time  Congress  will 
represent  the  people  and  few  if  any  initiative  measures  will  be 
voted  upon.  For  example,  in  Switzerland,  where  the  initiative 
v/as  installed  in  federal  affairs  in  1891  three  initiative  measures 
were  soon  voted  upon,  one  in  1893  and  two  the  next  year,  since 


38 


wliich  time  very  few  measures  have  been  presented,  not  one 
being  presented  for  the  next  thirteen  years. 

Objection  16.  The  majority  should  not  be  permitted  lo 
amend  the  constitution,  for  the  minority  would  no  longer  be 
protected. 

Answer;  The  question  is,  Shall  the  majority  or  the  mitiority 
rule?  The  answer  is  clearly  demonstrated  in  our  country’s  his- 
tory. The  people  have  prospered  most  under  majority  rule.  In 
Jefferson’s  day  the  people’s  rule  resulted  in  the  termination  of 
legal  privileges,  and  today  the  restoration  of  the  people’s  rule 
will  likewise  terminate  legal  privileges.  In  Michigan,  for  ex- 
ample, the  votes  of  eleven  Senators  can  prevent  the  submission 
of  a constitutional  amendment.  Is  that  right?  Or  should  the 
people  rule? 

The  monopolists  who  really  believe  that  they  will  be  better 
off  under  a continuation  of  the  existing  rule  of  the  few  are 
mistaken.  They  fail  to  grasp  the  fact  that  the  reestablishment 
of  the  people’s  rule  in  this  country  will  tremendously  benefit 
every  one,  just  as  the  improvements  in  electrical  appliances  are 
benefiting  everyone.  The  people’s  rule  will  improve  the  social 
conditions,  and  everyone  will  share  therein.  The  monopolists 
especially  will  be  benefited,  for  they  have  accumulated  fortunes, 
and  what  they  most  need  is  a stable  government.  This  they 
cannot  hope  for  under  the  continued  rule  of  the  few. 


ADDITIONAL  POINTS  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE. 

No  private  business  could  long  exist  with  absolute  power 
of  attorney  to  its  agents  and  clerks  for  two  to  six  years  without 
right  to  instruct  or  recall^  only  to  petition,  as  is  the  case  with 
public  servants.  No  opponent  of  the  initiative  and  referendum 
and  recall  would  consent  to  operate  his  own  business  on  the 
“go  as  you  please”  representative  plan  now  in  vogue  in  affairs 
of  state. 

Citizens  vote  for  measures  instead  of  men,  thereby  calling 
forth  the  highest  intelligence  and  contributing  to  educational 
upbuilding  of  the  whole  people. 

It  will  remove  the  power  and  possibility  of  political  corrup- 
tion, discharge  the  political  boss,  smash  the  “machine,”  destroy 
the  lobby  and  put  an  end  to  all  political  chicanery  and  intrigue. 

The  necessity  for  large  and  expensive  representative  bodies 
is  removed  for  the  people  can  represent  themselves. 


39 


The  necessity  for  the  veto  power  of  the  executive  is  removed, 
for  the  power  of  veto  resides  in  the  people,  where  it  belongs. 

The  necessity  for  constitutional  restrictions  is  removed,  for 
the  will  of  the  people  becomes  the  constitution  of  the  state. 

Simplification  of  the  legislative  machinery  will  lead  to  sim- 
plicity of  legal  enactment  and  do  away  with  voluminous,  com- 
plicated codes  of  law  and  uncertain  and  expensive  courts  of 
justice. 

It  is  admitted  that  mere  opinion  is  not  any  safer  a guide  in 
legislation  by  the  people  than  in  legislation  by  a king  or  a con- 
gress. Those  who  legislate  must  have  complete,  authoritative 
statements  of  facts  and  arguments  on  both  sides.  Without  an 
instrumentality  which  can  furnish  this  the  Initiative  and  Refer- 
endum can  never  be  a success  and  is  certain  to  disappoint  its 
advocates. 

But  in  the  Public  Discussion  and  Debate  Department  of  Uni- 
versity Extension  we  have  just  such  an  agency.  While  this  de- 
partment ministers  to  the  debater  it  may  also  serve  the  voter 
for  both  need  exactly  the  same  kind  of  information.  The  ideals 
governing  the  university  are  scholarship,  thoroughness,  accu- 
racy. It  can  only  win  approval  by  living  up  to  this  ideal;  its 
only  interest  is  to  bring  about  thorough,  fair  discussion,  and  any 
failure  to  do  so  would  be  immediately  exposed.  It  is  as  secure 
from  personal,  partisan,  selfish  interests  or  ideals  as  anything 
human  can  be. 

The  state  has  already  brought  together  such  aggregations 
of  books,  magazines,  experts,  and  means  of  investigation  as  are 
possible  no  where  else.  All  this  is  necessary  to  its  function  of 
free  investigation  of  truth,  and  the  dissemination  of  higher 
learning.  All  this  can  easily  be  made  available  to  the  entire 
state.  The  exhaustive  investigation  of  subjects  is  a common- 
place of  university  life.  The  debate  collections  now  issued  by 
the  Universit}"  Extension  in  every  state  are  but  a special  ap- 
plication of  an  everyday  activity  in  the  pursuit  of  all  high  learn- 
ing. 

If  there  were  a good  debating  club  in  every  school  house 
where  public  questions  were  discussed  with  the  aid  of  such  col- 
lections of  materials  as  are  now  furnished  by  university  exten- 
sion, the  Initiative  and  Referendum  would  have  not  only  a 
chance  to  succeed,  but  there  would  be  thousands  of  voters  bet- 
ter informed  than  legislators  usually  are,  or  have  any  oppor- 
tunity to  be.  University  Extension  is  indispensable  to  the  Ini- 
tiative and  Referendum. 


40 


BRIEF  REASONS  FOR  THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFER- 
ENDUM. 


Frank  Parsons.  Abstracts  from  Direct  Legislation — from  The  City  for  the 
People,  pp.  363-370.  (Affirmative). 

It  will  establish  self-government  in  place  of  government  by 
councils  and  legislatures;  democracy  in  place  of  elective  aris- 
tocracy; government  by  and  for  the  people  in  place  of  govern- 
ment by  and  for  the  politicians  and  the  corporate  interests 
whose  instruments  they  are. 

It  and  it  only  can  and  will  destroy  the  private  monopoly  of 
legislative  power,  and  establish  public  ownership  of  the  gov- 
ernment. The  fundamental  questions  are,  “Shall  the  people  rule 
or  be  ruled?  Shall  they  own  the  government  or  be  owned  by  it? 
Shall  they  control  legislation  or  merely  select  persons  to  con- 
trol it?”  The  referendum  answers  these  questions  in  favor  of 
the  people. 

It  will  perfect  the  representative  system,  correcting  the  evils 
of  the  unguarded  method  of  making  laws  by  final  vote  of  a body 
of  delegates  beyond  the  reach  of  any  immediate  effective  con- 
trol by  the  people. 

^ It  will  give  the  representatives  a keener  regard  for  public 
opinion,  and  enable  the  people  to  pass  on  their  action  be.fore  it 
takes  effect. 

It  will  constitute  “a  curb  to  the  never  ending  audacity  of 
elected  persons.” 

It  will  remove  the  concentration  of  temptation  by  diffusing 
power;  it  will  no  longer  pay  to  spend  much  time  and  money 
bringing  strong  pressure  to  bear  on  a few  legislators,  because 
their  action  will  not  be  final — they  can  not  deliver  the  goods. 

It  will  eliminate  legislative  corruption,  kill  the  lobby,  stop 
blackmailing  bills,  discourage  log-rolling,  check  the  passage  of 
private  and  local  acts,  and  close  the  door  to  franchise  steals 
and  all  other  sorts  of  fraudulent  legislation. 

It  will  destroy  the  power  of  legislators  to  legislate  for  per- 
sonal ends. 

It  will  infinitely  dilute  the  power  of  bribery. 

It  will  abolish  the  obstructive  power  of  unscrupulous  minori- 
ties in  legislative  bodies. 

It  will  undermine  the  power  of  rings  and  bosses. 

Under  direct  legislation  a speaker  can  no  longer  play  the 
Czar  to  any  purpose. 

It  wilt  develop  the  people’s  interest  in  public  affairs. 

It  will  compel  the  people  to  think  and  act. 


41 


It  will  diminish  partisanship  and  tend  to  wipe  out  party 
lines  in  discussion  and  voting.  The  records  we  have  given  of 
the  use  of  the  referendum  in  the  United  States  and  elsewhere 
prove  this. 

In  its  complete  form  it  will  enable  men  to  vote  their  con- 
victions without  leaving  their  party  or  deserting  its  candidates, 
and  so  will  diminish  the  warping  power  of  party  allegiance. 

It  will  work  an  automatic  disfranchisement  of  the  unfit,  and 
bring  out  a fuller  vote  of  the  more  intelligent  and  public  spirit- 
ed who  now  so  frequently  stay  at  home  because  they  do  not 
like  endorsing  any  of  the  platforms  or  candidates  presented. 

It  will  do  more  than  any  other  thing  except  the  growth  of 
sympathy  and  conscience  to  secure  a peaceful  solution  of  the 
great  industrial  problems  that  are  threatening  our  civilization. 

It  will  furnish  a strong  decentralizing,  counterbalancing 
force  to  save  us  from  the  centralizing,  combining,  trust  and  mo- 
nopoly tendencies  that  are  hastening  us  toward  industrial  des- 
potism. 

It  will  save  the  cost  of  innumerable  impotent  petitions  an(^ 
powerless  mass-meetings,  lobby  expenses,  abortive  investiga- 
tions, excessive  printing  of  special  laws,  local  acts,  private  legis- 
lation, etc.  The  cost  of  legislative  ssssions  of  councils,  legisla- 
tures and  so  forth  could  also  be  reduced;  perhaps  one  chamber 
of  moderate  size  would  be  sufficient  with  the  referendum. 

The  referendum  will  separate  the  judgment  on  men  from 
the  judgment  on  issues. 

It  will  disentangle  issues  and  permit  each  one  to  be  judged 
on  its  own  individual  merits,  thus  ridding  us  of  our  conglomer- 
ate politics,  with  its  mixture  of  issues  in  complex,  ambiguous 
platforms,  each  mixture  to  be  taken  only  with  a specified  can- 
didate or  set  of  candidates. 

POINTS  FOR  THE  NEGATIVE. 

Brief  arguments  against  the  Initiative  and  Referendum. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  a good  capable  legislature  is  the 
best  instrument  known  for  law-making.  It  can  be  efficient  if 
it  will.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  the  people  through  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum  are  anything  like  as  capable  or  qualified  by 
organization  or  average  intelligence  to  legislate  as  efficiently  as 
a legislature  could  if  the  people  would  elect  capable  legislators. 


42 


If  the  people  refuse  to  elect  good  legislators  they  are  to  blame; 
not  the  system. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  are  unwieldly  and  clumsy,  like 
using  a club  to  strike  a mosquito. 

One  of  the  chief  arguments  for  the  initiative  is  that  it  will 
be  a kind  of  a scare-crow  for  legislators.  But  we  are  not  de- 
bating its  value  as  a scare-crow  but  its  value  as  an  efficient 
means  of  legislation. 

Our  present  legislatures  are  not  perfect;  but  it  would  be  far 
better  and  easier  to  improve  them  than  to  change  our  whole 
S3^stem  of  government.  Legislatures,  as  they  now  are,  are  too 
large  and  the  best  method  of  reform  would  be  to  decrease  their 
size,  not  to  enlarge  it  indefinitely  by  making  a legislature  of 
the  whole  people. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  will  not  do  away  with  bribery 
and  corruption  for  many  signers  of  the  petitionss  sell  their 
signatures. 

It  will  not  lessen  but  rather  increase  the  influence  of  dema- 
gogues. 

Tt  will  not  simplify  the  law  for  we  will  have  a great  number 
of  laws  made  without  reference  to  or  knowledge  of  existing 
laws  on  the  same  subject. 

It  will  not  increase  respect  for  the  law  and  aid  in  its  enforce- 
ment for  what  is  everybody’s  business  is  nobody’s  business. 

Human  interests  conflict  endlessly.  Law-making  involves 
innumerable  adjustments,  delicate  balancings  and  distributions 
and  requires  a knowledge  of  all  those  things  that  make  the  ef- 
ficiency and  mark  the  limitations  of  laws,  a wide  knowledge  of 
laws  and  their  success  or  failure,  such  wide  knowledge  of  busi- 
ness and  of  life  as  to  be  able  to  judge  the  justice  and  expediency 
of  proposed  legislation. 

This  taking  of  all  power  from  the  hands  of  our  officials  will 
take  , away  any  inducement  for  good  men  to  enter  politics,  for 
no  one  wants  to  waste  his  time  in  being  merely  a figure  head. 

It  gives  unusual  power  to  a well  organized  minority  to  put 
through  their  views,  thus  putting  more  power  than  ever  into  the 
hands  of  capital. 

It  will  not  suppress  class  legislation  but  rather  increase  it, 
for  government  by  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  government 
by  minorities. 

The  people  have  not  time  to  act  in  a legislative  capacity  all 
the  time. 

The  average  citizen  is  too  busy  to  give  sufficient  attention 

43 


to  governmental  questions  to  enable  him  to  vote  wisely  upon 
them. 

The  inevitable  effect  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  would 
be  a still  further  deterioration  of  legislatures  by  diminishing  their 
responsibilities,  discrediting  their  acts  and  robbing  them  of  all 
finality.  Yet  one  of  the  chief  alleged  aims  of  the  initiation  and 
referendum  is  to  improve  legislatures. 

It  is  claimed  as  a merit  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  that 
if  we  had  them  we  would  not  have  to  use  them  very  much.  Why 
should  that  be  deemed  a merit? 

Our  legislative  troubles  all  arise  from  our  slavery  to  political 
parties.  We  do  not  vote  for  the  best  men  for  legislators,  but 
for  the  men  backed  by  party  machines.  Often  we  scarcely  con- 
sider their  real  qualifications  as  legislators. 

The  trouble  is  not  with  the  character  of  our  legislative  sys- 
tem, but  with  our  abuses  of  it.  The  thing  to  abolish  is  not 
the  system  but  the  abuses. 

Our  legislative  system  provides  for  all  the  necessities  of  leg- 
islation, deliberating,  studying,  comparing,  adjusting,  amending. 
No  better  system  has  ever  been  devised  by  man.  It  combines 
and  summarises  all  the  legislative  experience  of  the  race.  Glad- 
stone pronounced  our  constitution  the  greatest  ever  devised  by 
man.  The  advocates  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  wish  to 
undermine  our  legislative  system,  overthrow  it  if  need  be.  We 
say,  correct  its  abuses;  do  not  change  the  system  till  we  find 
something  better,  something  more  efficient  and  trustworthy. 

Every  advocate  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  old  enough 
to  vote  has  voted  for  unworthy  and  incompetent  legislators. 
Then  he  tries  to  shift  the  blame  for  his  own  folly  and  blindness 
by  attacking  the  system  which  he  has  outraged. 

The  referendum  often  causes  unnecessary  and  damaging  de- 
lay. Twice  the  appropriation  for  the  State  University  of  Ore- 
gon was  so  delayed,  and  the  appropriation  itself  was  nearly 
lost. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  are  too  cumbersome.  It  is 
very  difficult  for  the  poor  man  to  get  his  law  before  the  peo- 
ple. Getting  the  thousands  of  names  to  petitions,  getting  the 
support  of  nevfspapers  or  the  necessary  publicity  require  money 
and  influence.  A postal  card  addressed  by  a poor  man  to  a 
competent  legislator  could  gain  the  same  result  under  our 
present  system. 

Law-making  is  a highly  specialized  form  of  social  activity. 
It  not  only  requires  general  ability,  knowledge  and  character 


44 


of  the  highest  type,  but  special  qualifications.  There  is  no  more 
difficult  work.  There  is  no  greater  absurdity  than  to  say  that 
any  body  can  make  laws. 

The  advocates  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  order  to 
remedy  moral  defects  of  our  legislative  system  ignore  its  prac- 
tical merits  and  advantages  and  the  irrational  features  of  their 
own  proposal. 

No  adequate  means  of  determining  the  exact  form  of  an  ini- 
tiated bill  can  be  found.  The  insertion  of  a single  clause  oi 
doubtful  meaning  might  vitiate  the  entire  bill.  The  exact  form 
of  a bill  is  determined  by  a few  interested  parties;  the  mass  of 
the  people  can  only  vote  to  accept  or  reject  the  bill  as  a whole. 

A new  law  does  not  occupy  a field  alone.  The  real  law  is 
the  result  of  combining  the  law  with  old  laws'  in  the  same  field. 
No  new  law  can  be  a simple  proposition  but  an  increasingly 
complicated  one  requiring  infinite  adjustments  and  adapta- 
tions for  which  the  initiative  and  referendum  provide  no  ade- 
quate opportunity  or  facilities.  They  are  therefore  impotent  as 
an  efficient  means  of  legislation. 

It  is  notorious  that  men  sign  all  sorts  of  petitions  without 
even  reading  them.  That  is  not  the  kind  of  carefulness  need- 
ed to  determine  the  exact  form  and  wording  of  a law.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  find  anything  more  inefficient  than  petition-sign- 
ing as  a means  of  law-making. 

The  referendum  empowers  a small  minority  of  voters — from 
5 to  8 per  cent  usually — to  suspend  laws  duly  passed  by  the  leg- 
islature and  sometimes  to  defeat  them  by  a minority  of  all  the 
voters.  This  power  can  be  used  just  as  much  to  hold  up  good 
legislation  as  bad,  and  introduces  an  element  of  uncertainty  and 
confusion  into  all  legislation  to  which  it  can  be  applied. 

The  claim  that  Switzerland  has  been  made  a political  and 
economic  paradise  is  utterly  unsustained  by  the  facts.  The  peo- 
ple will  not  vote  unless  they  are  compelled  to,  and  then  from 
20  to  30  per  cent  cast  blank  ballots.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  the 
economic  improvement  in  Switzerland  is  due  to  the  initiative 
and  referendum,  for  similar  improvement  has  been  made  in 
countries  without  them. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  universally  result  in  minority 
rule.  The  facts  are  that  on  an  average  less  than  half  as  mahy 
persons  vote  on  measures  as  vote  for  men.  The  Oklahoma  ini- 
tiative and  referendum  law  requires  that  the  vote  for  a law' 
must  be  a majority  of  the  largest  vote  for  any  candidate.  So 
many  initiative  and  referendum  bills  fail  to  get  this  that  a de- 


43 


tcrmined  effort  is  being  made  to  amend  the  law  so  that  a mi- 
nority of  those  voting  may  make  a law. 

Crude  and  sometimes  contradictory  measures  are  often  sub- 
mitted by  the  initiative  and  referendum  as  in  the  Oregon  Fish- 
ing Laws,  where  the  net  fishermen  of  the  lower  Columbia  and 
the  Wheel  fishermen  of  the  upper  Columbia  initiated  laws  at 
* the  same  time,  the  former  to  prohibit  wheel-fishing  and  the  lat- 
ter, net-fishing.  Both  laws  were  passed  by  the  voters  of  Ore- 
gon thus  closing  the  great  salmon  fisheries,  so  far  as  the  voters 
were  concerned.  This  was  not  due  to  the  folly  of  the  voters 
of  Oregon  but  to  the  inherent  weakness  of  that  method  of  leg- 
islation. 

The  initiative  ^nd  referendum  involve  more  or  less  the  old 
logical  fallacy,  “argumentum  ad  Populum.”.  The  fact  that  a 
law  is  popular  has  no  direct  relation  to  its  justice  or  efficiency; 
unjust  laws  must  be  popular  with  somebody  or  they  would  be 
repealed.  The  essential  question  concerning  any  law  is  not 
who  passed  it  or.  whose  selfish  interests  it  conserves,  but 
whether  it  is  just,  right,  and  expedient.  A legislature  has  infin- 
itely greater  facilities  for  enacting  such  laws  than  the  masses 
of  the  people. 

We  have  ‘‘land  slides,”  waves  of  public  feeling  which  require 
the  most  stable  government  to  withstand.  The  people  often  re- 
verse their  judgment.  The  very  idea  of  a constitution  is  something 
established;  something  that  will  remain  stable  in  times  of  storm 
and  stress.  Much  of  the  talk  about  appealing  to  the  people  is 
pure  demagoguery. 

The  only  rule  that  can  bring  happiness  and  peace  to  a peo- 
ple is  the  rule  of  right  and  reason.  We  cannot  hope  to  secure 
these  wdthout  using  the  proper  means  and  facilities  for  inves- 
tigation and  deliberation.  Such  legislation  by  legislatures  is 
as  clearly  possible  as  it  is  impossible  by  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum. 

A pertinent  fact  which  must  not  be  overlooked  is  that  all 
the  faults  of  our  legislative  system  are  well  and  long  known, 
while  there  has  not  yet  been  time  to  reveal  all  the  faults  and 
weaknesses  of  the  initiative  and  referendum.  As  a piece  of  leg- 
islative machinery  the  legislature  is  evidently  superior.  The 
trouble  is  not  with  the  system  but  with  the  people  who  do  not 
elect  capable  men.  This  is  the  sole  difficulty. 

Even  the  stockholders  of  a great  corporation  delegate  their 
legislation  to  directors  who  are  able  to  study  the  details  of  pro 


46 


posed  legislation  and  its  working  as  the  mass  of  the  stock- 
holders are  not. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  masses  are  much  more  easily 
interested  in  men  than  in  measures.  It  they  fail  in  choosing 
capable  men^  they  would  be  even  more  likely  to  fail  in  enact- 
ing measures.  The  quality  of  legislators  has  steadily  declined 
— almost  anybody  can  be  elected  to  the  legislature.  At  best  it 
is  a stepping-stone  to  something  higher.  The  people  are  solely 
to  blame  for  the  quality  of  the  legislators  whom  they  elect.  If 
they  are  faithless  in  a few  things,  what  possible  reason  have 
we  to  asume  that  they  will  be  faithful  in  many  things? 

Good  legislation  is  impossible  without  deliberation  and  the 
resulting  amending  and  adjusting  and  modifying.  All  this  is 
impossible  with  the  initiative  and  referendum;  every  bill  must 
be  accepted  or  rejected  as  it  is  submitted.  Voters  will  accept 
bills  with  serious  defects  rather  than  defeat  them  altogether. 
This  would  soon  produce  a chaos  of  conflicting  and  contradictory 
legislation. 

What  are  the  courts  to  do  when  two  initiative  laws  conflict 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Oregon  salmon  fishing' cases?  Shall  they 
be  given  power  to  annul  an  initiated  law?  Shall  an  initiated  law 
have  equal  force  with  a constitutional  provision?  The  respon- 
sibility for  consistent  legislation  would  only  be  shifted  from 
a responsible  legislature  to  the  irresponsible  framers  of  initia- 
tive petitions. 

That  legislation  is  sometimes  unsatisfactory  is  no  possible 
argument  for  the  initiative.  We  can  not  expect  perfect  laws  and 
there  is  no  proof  that  the  people  will  do  any  better. 

No  men,  however  intelligent  or  incorruptible,  can  legislate 
without  facts.  Good  legislation  in  this  day  is  largely  a matter 
of  scholarship  or  expert  knowledge.  The  best  intentions  are 
no  substitute  for  complete  and  exact  knowledge.  The  vital 
thing,  then,  in  legislation  is  the  instrumentalities  for  furnishing 
such  knowledge.  Strange  to  say,  they  are  almost  wholly  ne- 
glected; the  legislator  must  furnish  them  himself  if  he  has  them 
at  all.  In  the  solution  of  a legislative  problem  the  legislator 
should  have  before  him  all  the  pertinent  experience  of  the  race 
in  dealing  with  it,  all  that  science  of  every  branch  of  human 
endeavor  can  contribute  to  its  solution. 

The  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  of  university  extension  is 
just  such  an  instrumentality.  In  the  advanced  study  of  such 
subjects  as  Sociology,  History,  Economics,  Politics  Science, 
etc.,  vast  accumulations  of  just  such  materials  as  the  legislator 


47 


needs  are  indispensable,  and  the  rank  ot  a university  is  largely 
determined  by  its  array  of  such  facilities,  modern  methods 

of  indexing,  cataloging,  and  the  assistance  of  a librarian,  these 
accumulations  can  be  made  available  to  the  intelligent  legislator. 

In  framing  a law  the  legislator  would  have  before  him  all 
the  experience  of  other  states  in  dealing  with  the  same  problem. 
Instead  of  endlessly  repeating  the  mistakes  and  blunders  of 
the  past,  then,  there  would  be  a possibility  of  improvement,  or 
at  least  of  utilizing  the  experience  of  others.  Let  it  be  once 
understood  that  without  such  knowledge  no  legislator  is  com- 
petent to  frame  a law  or  even  to  vote  upon  it  and  only  such 
men  would  be  sent  to  legislatures. 

The  only  hope  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  is  that  they^ 
will  improve  legislatures;  but  this  can  be  done  far  more  cer- 
tainly and  easily  by  use  of  university  extension,  and  sending 
men  to  legislature  who  are  competent  to  use  it.  We  have  the 
accumulations  of  learning  anyhow  at  every  state  university;  all 
we  need  is  to  utilize  them  in  legislation. 


EXTENSION  DIVISION 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  NORTH  DAKOTA 


BUREAU  OF  EDUCATIONAL  COOPERATION 


Correspondence  Study  in  college  and  vocational  subjects 
under  the  direction  of  the  University  Faculty. 

Lectures  in  series,  with  syllabi,  for  study-clubs;  single 
lectures  lor  special  groups  and  general  audiences. 


Concerts  and  Recitals  for  music  and  culture  clubs,  and 
for  community  lecture  and  entertainment  courses. 

Extension  Teaching  in  cooperation  with  educational 
institutions  conducting  continuation  and  evening 
schools. 


Visual  Instruction 
and  exhibits. 

Debating  and  Public 
ized  by  state  contests 
questions  with  briefs  a 
loan  material. 


he  loan  of  lantern  slides 

n stimulated  and  organ- 
ps  containing  formulated 
iliographies,  and  library 


General  Information  on  matters^™  aining  to  education, 
state  and  local  government,  puDiic  health,  civic  im- 
provement and  other  subjects  of  special  but  com.mon 
interest. 


BUREAU  OF  PUBLIC  SERVICE 

Surveys,  Research,  and  Investigation  in  fields  and  on 
subjects  of  community  and  state  importan-ce. 

Suggestive  Aid  for  county,  town  and  municipal  boards^ 
commissions  and  councils;  school  boards,  commercial 
clubs,  civic  and  economic  betterment  associations. 

Exhibits,  Conferences  and  Institutes  for  public  informa- 
tion upon  vocational,  educational  and  social  welfare 


D112 


05658402 


Frank  L.  McVey,  Ph.  D., 
J.  J.  Pettijohn,  B,  a , Dii 
Grace  Thompson,  B.  A 
For  full  informat 
ion,  University,  N.  D 


istration 

sident  of  the  University. 


ecretary. 

(.ess:  Director,  Extension  Divis- 


